Introduction
Murder is a common law offence in England and Wales, famously defined by Sir Edward Coke as the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace, with malice aforethought. While the actus reus (unlawful killing) is relatively straightforward, the mens rea, or 'malice aforethought', has been the subject of significant judicial interpretation. Modern law has established that malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). The statement that "murder is a crime of intention" is therefore broadly accurate, but the legal meaning of 'intention' is more complex than its everyday usage suggests. This essay will argue that while intention is the core mental element of murder, its meaning has been expanded by the courts to include not only direct purpose but also foresight of virtual certainty, and its scope has been controversially widened by the inclusion of an intention to cause GBH.
The Meaning of Intention
The primary form of intention required for murder is direct intent. This is the simplest and most intuitive form of mens rea, where the defendant's aim, purpose, or desire is to bring about the prohibited consequence, namely death or GBH. In R v Moloney [1985], Lord Bridge stated that in most cases, the word 'intention' should be given its ordinary meaning and requires no special direction to the jury. For example, if a defendant shoots someone through the heart at close range, their direct intention to kill or at least cause GBH is clear from the act itself. In such cases, the defendant acts to achieve a specific outcome, and the statement that murder is a crime of intention holds true in its most literal sense.
However, the law has had to address situations where the defendant argues that the victim's death was not their purpose, even if it was a highly predictable result of their actions. This has led to the development of the concept of oblique (or indirect) intention. The law on this point was clarified in R v Woollin [1999]. The House of Lords held that a jury is not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case. It is important to note that even where this test is met, it does not automatically equate to intention. Instead, it is a rule of evidence from which the jury may infer intention (R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003]). Therefore, the mens rea for murder is expanded beyond a defendant’s explicit purpose to include consequences they foresaw as virtually certain, making the concept of 'intention' a more technical legal term.
The Grievous Bodily Harm Rule
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the simple statement that "murder is a crime of intention" is the rule that an intention to cause GBH is sufficient mens rea. This was affirmed in R v Vickers [1957], where the court held that if a defendant intends to inflict GBH and the victim dies as a result, this constitutes the necessary malice aforethought for murder. The definition of GBH is 'really serious harm' (DPP v Smith [1961]). This means a person can be convicted of murder even if they did not intend to kill, and indeed may have hoped the victim would survive.
This aspect of the law is controversial. Critics, such as Lord Steyn, have argued that it violates the principle of correspondence, which suggests that the mental element of a crime should correspond to its conduct element (Herring, 2022). Convicting someone of murder, the most serious homicide, when their intention was only to cause serious injury, not death, arguably creates a form of constructive liability. It labels a defendant a murderer based on a fatal outcome they did not intend. While this rule remains settled law, its existence demonstrates that the mens rea for murder is not limited to an intention to kill, significantly broadening the scope of the offence beyond what the title "crime of intention" might imply to a layperson.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the statement "murder is a crime of intention" is true, but it is an oversimplification of a complex legal concept. The mens rea for murder is based on intention, but this includes both direct intention (the defendant's purpose) and oblique intention (where the result is a virtually certain and foreseen consequence of their actions). Furthermore, the long-established rule that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for a murder conviction means that a defendant can be liable for murder without ever having intended to cause death. The law of murder is therefore not just concerned with an intention to kill, but with a broader intention to cause serious physical harm, a position that remains a point of academic and judicial debate.
References
- Herring, J. (2022) Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 10th edn. Oxford University Press.
Case Law
- DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
- R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192
- R v Moloney [1985] AC 905
- R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664
- R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82
