The Current Law: Role of Intention and Motive in Criminal Law for the blameworthiness of the defendant.

 

Md. Hasibul Alam Shamrat[1]

 

The subsequent article is emphasised on the present laws regarding intention and motive for the blameworthiness of the accused in criminal law. Intention is one of the crucial components of mens rea for the liability of the suspect in criminal law, where motive is irrelevant in terms of criminal liability. Though dictionary meaning of the word intention and motive are different there are still some aspects where both of them are considered simultaneously on a particular issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A defendant is guilty of a criminal offence if both the actusreus and mens rea can be proven and intention is an integral part of mens rea which is the mental element of a criminal offence. The court faced many problems in defining intention[2]. But The House of Lords made it clear uttering that the legal meaning of the word is the usual dictionary meaning which meant aim or purpose.[3] Lord Bridge led it inMoloney[4] stating that the golden rule is that, directing a jury in terms of the mental element of a particular crime, the judge must not detail or rephrase the meaning of intention, it should be left to jury’s good sense whether the necessary intent has been acted by the accused, except the judge is entirely assured relying on the facts, evidence and argument of the case that jury needs detailed explanation to avoid any mistakes. Again intention is divided into two types which are direct intention and indirect/oblique intention, direct intention is when one intends to do something with his aim or purpose. However, for oblique intention it does not require desire to do an act nor it requires aim or purpose.[5] It was clear from Woollin[6]which stated that “the consequence which is virtually certain to occur and the defendant had foreseen it” the current law of this oblique intention is developed from Nedrick[7],the House of Lords approved it in Woollin[8]and mentioned as the ‘virtual certainty’ test.[9] The current law of oblique intention is Woollin[10]which states that when one is charged for murder on his act but he had not desired the consequence, but the defendant appreciated the death or serious injury which is virtually certain to occur, then jury may find the defendant had required intention for mens rea of murder.[11] It must also be noticed that jurisdiction on oblique intention are murder cases and the mens rea for murder is malice aforethought which is also known as intention to kill or cause GBH.[12]

 

In exceptional situation motive may be made into an element of offence as in Crime and Disorder Act 1998[13] which ensures penalty for certain unlawful act which are religiously or racially exasperate, like assaults, criminal damage or public order offences. Based on the associateship of a particular ethnicity or religious group the offence is racially or religiously aggravated where it is motivated towards that particular group in s.28 (1) (b) of the Crime and Disorder Act[14].[15] But in normal occasion motive is irrelevant in terms of criminal liability like Smith[16]andChandler v Dpp[17], it is also inapplicable when one has good motive.[18]A defendant cannot be acquitted from criminal liability even if he has a good motive. It was clear from the privy council case of Yip Chiu-Cheung v R[19] and almost similar types of decision was given by the House of Lords in Latif[20].[21]The statement in both the cases concerned about motive and intention and which came into the context of the appellants and there might be a moral sympathy for them but the problem is that according to the current law the moral sympathy has failed within the strict letters of law.[22]

 

The court has been consistently stating that motive is immaterial in criminal law also provided many examples like Lynch v DPP[23]. But in rare occasions court gave importance to defendant’s motive which was in R v Adams[24], here doctor gave pain-killer medicine to the patient which would slightly miniature the patient life span. It was held that the doctor did not intend to kill the patient instead the purpose was to relive the pain.[25]Gillick[26]is also an example for good motive whereHouse of Lords held that there will be no offence regarding the aiding and abetting unlawful (under aged) sexual intercourse by giving contraceptive advice and pills to the girls aged less than 16. Though the doctor might know that due to the advice, the girl might engage herself in unlawful sexual intercourse where the doctor did not intended to assist her.[27] In Steane[28]the defendant assisted the enemy as he was frightened that his family would have been sent to the concentration camp and The Court of Appeal decided that the defendant acted in order to save his family from the concentration camp and also stated that the defendant did not intend to assist the enemy. In this particular case it seems like Court of Appeal confused motive with intention and gave a sympathetic view towards the defendant.[29] The reasoning of this case was also questionable.[30]

 

Though many argued that motive is unconnected in criminal law but there are many ways where motive is relevant. A defendant’s purpose can be established by the help of motive as motive produces a particular result and it is somewhat similar to intention.[31] According to Alan Norrie it is hard to think of having an intention without motive and further he added that motive is the operative strength behind the intention.[32]In case of oblique intention motive might also be relevant where the jury might find the virtual certainty and foresight of that virtual certainty that the intention was there.[33] Also for the purpose of property offences it is impossible to assess whether the defendant was acting dishonestly without considering defendant’s motive.[34]Though the motive of the defendant is not taken into account it seems odd if mens rea is all about ascertaining the blameworthiness, as there lies a clear difference in moral terms between mercy killer and contract killer but in the eye of law they are treated equally.[35] Many argued that motive would be better than intention and recklessness in ascertaining the blameworthiness.[36] Beside, Alan Norrie claimed that motive might suddenly become relevant again referring to Gillick[37].[38]

 

There lies much confusion between motive and intention but one thing is very clear and certain that intention is an important element of mens rea in criminal law as the current law regarding this has been well established for a long time. Starting from DPP v Smith[39] where it was stated that there would be objective irrebuttable presumption of law, later it is changed by the section 8 of CJA 1967[40] where subjective rule of evidence has been restored. Later current law has been shifted from one case to the another that is from Hyam v DPP[41]to Mohan[42] to Moloney[43] to Hancock and Shankland[44]and later it shifted to Nedrick[45] where the direction was given to jury not to infer intention, unless death or serious injury virtually certain to occur and the defendant had foreseen it.[46]Woollin[47]confirmed Nedrick[48] but changed ‘infer’ to ‘find’ and laid down as a rule of evidence or one of substantive law and Matthews and Alleyne[49]confirmed both Nedrick[50]and Woollin[51]as a rule of evidence.[52] Thus it can be said that the current law of intention is not only satisfactory but also a well-established element of mens rea and it has a great impact on the mental element of criminal law. “If doctor use analgesic to relive the pain of the patient knowing that it will kill the patient one day, the doctor will be liable for murder which was in Coxs[53]. Thus, the pain relief in the above-mentioned scene of the doctor’s example prima facie could very likely be murder.”[54]Besides, Antony Duff stated that motive will be relevant when parliament wants it to be relevant and if parliament has not declared it relevant court cannot permit the good motive as a defense.[55] Hence it is said that motive is immaterial in criminal liability.

 

Although intention is well established integral part of mens rea of an offence and in deciding the blameworthiness of the defendant it plays the most important role, however, one cannot omit the applicability of motive straightway in many cases. Therefore, with the above discussion, it can be concluded that motive has still relevancy while deciding the blameworthiness of defendant along with the intention.

 

 

 

 

[1]This paper was submitted as part of the author’s L.L.B programme at BPP University (UK). Some alterations have been made to the paper to include further comprehensive details.

[2]Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Text, cases and Materials (8th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 126, 127.

[3]Ibid

[4]R v Moloney[1985] AC 905, 926

[5]Ibid

[6]Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82,HL

[7]Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025

[8]Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82,HL

[9]Nicola Monagham, Criminal Law Directions (5th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 57.

[10]Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82,HL

[11]Nicola Monagham, Criminal Law Directions (5th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 57.

[12]Ibid

[13]Crime and Disorder Act 1998

[14]Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.28(1)(b)

[15]Michael J. Allen, Criminal Law (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2017) 92.

[16]Smith [1960] 2QB 423.

[17]Chandler v Dpp[1964] AC 763

[18]Michael J. Allen, Criminal Law (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2017) 92.

[19]Yip Chiu-Cheung v R  [1994] 3 WLR 514.

[20]Latif [1996] 1 All ER 353.

[21]Michael J. Allen, Criminal Law (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2017) 92.

[22]Ibid

[23]Lynch v DPP [1975] AC 653; where the defendant was told to assist in killing or else he will be killed but from the verdict of House of Lords made it clear that the defendant intended to assist in killing, nevertheless his motive was to avoid being killed by the terrorist but court did not took his motive into account.

[24]R v Adams [1957] Crim LR 365

[25]Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Text, cases and Materials (8th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 191.

[26]Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112

[27]Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Text, cases and Materials (8th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 191.

[28]Steane[1947] KB 887

[29]Nicola Monagham, Criminal Law Directions (5th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 55.

[30]Ibid

[31]Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Text, cases and Materials (8th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 191.

[32]Alan Norrie, “Punushment, Responsibility and Justice” (Oxford University Press,2002) 36

[33]Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Text, cases and Materials (8th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 191.

[34]Ibid

[35]Kessler Ferzan, “Beyond intention“ (2008) C.L.R

[36]Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Text, cases and Materials (8th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 192

[37]Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112

[38]Alan Norrie, “Punushment, Responsibility and Justice” (Oxford University Press,2002).

[39]DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290.

[40]Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8

[41]Hyam v DPP [1975]1 AC 55

[42]Mohan [1976]1 QB 1.

[43]R v Moloney[1985] AC 905, 926

[44]Hancock and Shankland[1985] 3 WLR 1014

[45]Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025

[46]Nicola Monagham, Criminal Law Directions (5th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 65.

[47]Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82,HL

[48]Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025

[49]Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192

[50]Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025

[51]Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82,HL

[52]Nicola Monagham, Criminal Law Directions (5th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 65.

[53]Coxs [1992] 12 bmlr 38

[54]Nicola Monagham, Criminal Law Directions (5th edn, Oxford University Press,2016) 92.

[55]Antony Duff, “Principle and Contradiction  in the Criminal Law: Motives and Criminal Liability”  (CUP,1998)