Introduction to Mens Rea: Intention
In your journey through Criminal Law, you have already looked at the actus reus (the physical act of a crime). Now, we are looking at the second essential half: the mens rea. This is a Latin term that literally means "guilty mind."
For most crimes, it isn't enough to just do something wrong; you must have had a specific state of mind while doing it. In this chapter, we are focusing on the highest level of fault: Intention. This is where a person consciously decides to bring about a particular result.
Note: This chapter focuses strictly on Intention. You will cover Recklessness and Causation in other chapters of this section.
1. What is Intention?
Intention is the most "blameworthy" state of mind. If you intend to cause harm, the law views you as more responsible than if you were just being careless. In English law, there are two types of intention you need to know for your exam:
- Direct Intention
- Indirect (Oblique) Intention
2. Direct Intention
This is the most straightforward type of intention. It occurs when a person acts with the aim, purpose, or desire to bring about a specific consequence.
Imagine you are playing a game of darts. You aim for the bullseye, throw the dart, and hit the bullseye. That was your direct intention—it was your specific goal.
Key Definition: The defendant acts with direct intention if the result is their specific aim or objective.
Example: If Person A picks up a heavy object and hits Person B over the head because they want to knock them unconscious, Person A has the direct intention to cause that harm.
3. Indirect (Oblique) Intention
This is where things get a little bit more complicated, but don't worry! Indirect intention (also called oblique intention) applies when the defendant does not necessarily desire the consequence, but they know it is almost certain to happen because of their actions.
To decide if someone had indirect intention, the law uses a two-part test (often referred to as the Woollin test in English Law):
- Was the consequence a virtually certain result of the defendant's actions?
- Did the defendant realise (foresee) that it was a virtually certain result?
The Analogy of the Airplane:
Imagine a man wants to claim insurance money for a cargo of gold. He puts a time bomb on a plane to blow it up mid-flight so the gold is lost and he gets the insurance money. He doesn't actually want the pilot to die (he might even like the pilot!), but he knows that if the plane blows up mid-air, the pilot’s death is virtually certain. Because he knows this and does it anyway, he has indirect intention for the pilot’s death.
Quick Review: Direct vs. Indirect
Direct Intention: "I want this to happen."
Indirect Intention: "I don't necessarily want this to happen, but I know it definitely will happen if I do this."
4. Intention vs. Motive
One of the biggest mistakes students make is confusing intention with motive. They are not the same thing in criminal law!
- Intention is the decision to bring about a result (The "What").
- Motive is the reason why you want that result (The "Why").
Important Rule: Motive is generally irrelevant when deciding if someone is guilty. A "good" motive does not excuse a "bad" intention.
Example: A person steals bread from a shop to feed a starving child.
Motive: To save the child from hunger (Good).
Intention: To permanently deprive the shopkeeper of the bread (Criminal Intention).
In the eyes of the law, the intention is what matters for the mens rea of theft.
5. Key Takeaways for Paper 2
When you are answering scenario-based questions in Section A of Paper 2, keep these points in mind:
- Check the Facts: Does the scenario say the defendant "wanted," "aimed," or "set out" to do something? If so, talk about Direct Intention.
- Virtual Certainty: If the defendant says "I didn't mean for that to happen," look at the situation. Was the harm virtually certain to happen? Did they know that? If yes, apply Indirect Intention.
- Terminology: Always use the phrase "virtually certain." Avoid weaker words like "likely" or "probable" when discussing indirect intention, as the legal threshold is very high.
Don't forget: In Paper 2, Section A, you must use the source material provided. If the source material gives you a definition of intention, make sure you use that specific wording in your answer!
Common Mistakes to Avoid:
1. Confusing Intention with Recklessness: Intention is about knowing something will happen or wanting it to happen. Recklessness is about taking an unjustified risk. (You will study this in the next chapter).
2. Thinking Motive Matters: Students often argue a defendant isn't guilty because they had a "good reason." Remember, if they intended the act, the mens rea is usually proven regardless of the reason.
Did you know?
The concept of indirect intention is rarely used. Most criminal cases are decided based on direct intention or recklessness. Indirect intention is usually reserved for very specific cases where the defendant's primary goal was something else, but their actions made the harm unavoidable.