Introduction to Mens Rea: Intention
In English Law, most crimes require two main parts: the physical act (actus reus) and the mental state (mens rea). You can think of mens rea as the "guilty mind." It is the reason why we distinguish between someone who accidentally trips and knocks a vase over, and someone who smashes it on purpose!
In your Paper 2 exam, intention is the highest level of fault. It shows the defendant had the highest level of control and desire regarding their actions. Let’s break down the two ways the law defines intention.
1. What is Intention?
It is important to remember that intention is not the same as motive.
- Motive is why you do something (e.g., stealing bread to feed a hungry child).
- Intention is the desire to bring about the prohibited result (e.g., the desire to take the bread).
In court, the motive rarely matters for proving guilt; the law only cares if you intended the act.
2. Direct Intention
Direct intention is the most straightforward type of mens rea. It occurs when the defendant acts with the specific aim or purpose of bringing about a certain result.
Imagine a game of darts: if you throw the dart specifically trying to hit the "bullseye," and you hit it, you had direct intention to hit the bullseye. It was your clear goal.
Example: If A points a loaded gun at B and pulls the trigger because A wants B to die, A has the direct intention to kill.
Key Takeaway: If the result is what the defendant wanted to happen, it is direct intention.
3. Indirect (Oblique) Intention
This is where things get a little bit trickier, but don't worry! Indirect intention (also called oblique intention) applies when the prohibited result was not the defendant's main goal, but they knew it was virtually certain to happen as a result of their actions.
To decide if a defendant had indirect intention, the law usually looks at two questions:
1. Was the result a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions?
2. Did the defendant realise (see) that it was virtually certain?
The "Plane" Analogy:
Imagine a person wants to claim insurance money for a cargo of gold. They hide a bomb on a cargo plane, intending only to destroy the gold so they can claim the money. However, they know that if the plane explodes mid-flight, the pilot will virtually certainly die.
Even though their aim was just to get insurance money, because they knew the pilot's death was a virtual certainty, the law can find they had indirect intention to kill.
Quick Review:
- Direct: "I want this specific result to happen."
- Indirect: "I want something else to happen, but I know this result is bound to happen too."
4. Common Mistakes to Avoid
When you are answering scenario questions in Section A of Paper 2, watch out for these common traps:
Mistake 1: Confusing Intention with Recklessness
Intention is about certainty. Recklessness (which you will study in another chapter) is about taking an unjustified risk. If a defendant thinks a result "might" happen, that is not intention. For intention, it must be their goal or something they see as "virtually certain."
Mistake 2: Thinking "Desire" is Necessary for Indirect Intention
A defendant might be very sad that someone will get hurt by their actions. However, if they go ahead anyway knowing the harm is virtually certain, they still have indirect intention. The law looks at what they knew would happen, not what they hoped would happen.
5. Summary Table for Revision
Use this simple table to keep the two types of intention clear in your mind:
Type of Intention: Direct Intention
Defendant's Mindset: "It was my aim and purpose to cause this result."
Key Word: Purpose / Goal
Type of Intention: Indirect (Oblique) Intention
Defendant's Mindset: "It wasn't my main goal, but I knew it was definitely going to happen."
Key Word: Virtual Certainty
6. Applying this to Paper 2
In your exam, you will often be given a source material (like an extract from a statute or a case description).
- Step 1: Read the scenario carefully. What was the defendant's main goal? (If the goal matches the crime, it's direct intention).
- Step 2: If the goal was different, ask: Was the harm a "virtually certain" outcome?
- Step 3: Did the defendant realize it was virtually certain?
- Step 4: Use the phrasing from your source material to justify your answer. If the source material mentions "intention," explain which type fits the facts best.
Top Tip: Always mention that intention is a mental element (mens rea) and relate it back to the specific fault required for the crime mentioned in your exam paper (such as theft or criminal damage).