THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFINITION OF INTENTION IN CRIMINAL LAW
INTRODUCTION
The intention to commit a crime is whether the accused person was aware of the consequences of their action or inaction to constitute a criminal offense. The jury of the court has to use the facts and evidence to determine whether the accused was aware of these consequences but went ahead and acted or omitted. The jury must decide beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a commission of a criminal offense. The rationale behind this concept is that an accused person once convicted may have to spend years behind bars or pay a hefty fine; therefore, it would be best that there are no doubts during conviction. Uncertainties would mean that there is the possibility of innocence, which goes against the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
ELEMENTS UNDER CRIMINAL LAW
The main rule is that two elements must be proven in criminal offenses: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is the prohibited act that has been committed by the accused. Mens Rea looks into the accused’s mind as to whether they know the consequences of their action but still went ahead and acted or omitted, thus amounting to a criminal offense. An illustration of mens rea and actus reus can be established using the case of R v Woolin.[1]1975]. The accused has a bad temper and threw the baby (3 months) onto the wall to stop the crying, which resulted in injury on their skull, leading to death. The accused’s defense was a provocation and that he did not intend to harm the child. The act of throwing the child was the actus reus. The jury found the accused guilty because they stated that there was a substantial risk that the throwing of the baby could result in bodily harm or death, thereby proving intention. The determination of intention is reflected in the element of mens rea. Some factors would establish the mens rea of an accused person: negligence, recklessness, and knowledge. Negligence is the state in which an accused person has a duty of care to another but went against that duty of care, causing harm or injury to another by committing a criminal offense. Some very many people have a duty of care to one another, such as doctors, by their profession. Knowledge is where one knows that their action or omission is a criminal offense, but that does not stop them from committing the crime. Recklessness looks into the fact that the accused not intending to cause harm to another ended up doing so by accident. The accident does not preclude someone from being convicted of the commission of a criminal offense because the action or inaction could have caused harm to another individual. The House of Lord has handled very many criminal cases forcing them to establish the mens rea and the actus reus. The House of Lord has looked into the considerations that should be made regarding an individual’s mental state that would be enough to conclude intention, including cases where an accused person had the precise intent of causing harm to another person. The crimes that have a consequence are referred to as result crimes that focus on the unlawful effect of the accused person’s action or inaction.
LEGISLATION ON THE DEFINITION OF INTENTION IN CRIMINAL LAW
The case of DPP v Smith[2] was one of the evidence that were brought before the establishment of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967. The facts of the case regarded an accused that killed a police officer during the arrest. The police officer died from holding on to the accused’s car, thus being run over. The House of Lords convicted the accused of murder based on two reasons. The first was that the accused knew that their actions would result in the effect of being murder. The second reason was that the accused must have predicted the consequence of the risk to which any reasonable person predicted. The second reason received a lot of criticisms but was later debunked by the enforcement of section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 provides a legal body for the establishment of proof of criminal intent. Section 8 (a) of the legislation provides that an accused person shall not be held liable on the basis that there was intention or foresight on the consequences of their action simply because it is the likely or expected consequence of the actions committed.[3] Further, section 8 (b) of the legislation looks into the evidence before the court determines whether the accused intended the consequences of their actions or omissions do occur.[4]
INDIRECT INTENTION
The first case that developed the concept of indirect intention in criminal law is the case of Hyam v DPP.[5] The accused took newspapers, placed them inside the letterbox of a door, and later poured petrol and set it ablaze. The resident’s two daughters died from the fire. The accused’s defense was the rationale behind her actions: to scare the residents and not kill them. The judge informed the jury that the accused should be held guilty of the evidence reveals that there was a high probability that she knew that her actions would result in death or serious bodily harm. The accused was held guilty of her actions because the court held that the accused knew that there was a high probability that her actions could result in death or serious bodily harm.
The expectation of the natural result of the action of the defendant would constitute a criminal offense whether the harm was intended or not. The case of R v Hancock and Shankland[6] Established this rule thus expounding in the constitution of intention in criminal offenses. The facts of the case were that two miners were striking their job shoved a concrete slap from the bridge to land on the highway as a form of demonstration. The accused parties knew that a miner that was not part of the strike would be in a taxi going to work. The accused’s actions resulted in the taxi driver’s death because the concrete slab landed on the vehicle. The defense of the accused parties was that they merely intended to scare the miner that was not part of the strike and anyone else who wouldn’t join them and not cause harm. However, the court held that the natural consequence of their actions would result in bodily injury or death to which the accused ought to have known, thus making them guilty.
DIRECT INTENTION
R v Mohan determined the elements that constitute direct intention by stating that plan is the aim that an accused has to bring harm to another person. There is a specific purpose to the actions of the accused, thus proving the guilty mind. The facts of the case were that the accused accelerated his vehicle after a police officer instructed him to stop. The car nearly hit the police officer, thus causing the accused to be charged with attempted actual bodily harm against the police officer. The court held that the defendant knew that their actions could have resulted in the police officer’s physical injury and therefore had a guilty mind.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the elements that constitute a crime have been improved over the years, thus increasing the judiciary’s capabilities in handing criminal matters. Mens rea and actus reus are vital in handling criminal cases.
Reference List
Primary Sources
Criminal Justice Act 1967
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290.
Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55.
R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 1 AC 455
R v Woolin [1975] AC 55.
Secondary Sources
Codifying the Meaning of ‘Intention’ in the Criminal Law
Article (PDF Available) in Journal of Criminal Law 73(5):394-413 · October 2009 with 3,111 Reads
[,
[2] DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290.
[3] Criminal Justice Act of 1967
[4] Ibid
[5] Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55.
[6] R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 1 AC 455.