Motive although generally not accounted for when looking at intention (mens rea is also referred to in statutes as intention), it can have relevance in looking at the mens rea and whether it is necessary to include the mental state of the accused at trial. In the case of R v Steane, Lord Goddard stated; “While the idea that one intends the natural consequences of one's acts… it does not relieve the Crown of proving mens rea.” This is essential as presuming what one intends and what the person actually intends can be completely contrasting. Divulging Steane’s motives and mental state is essential when looking at this case as the result of the sentence could be drastically modified by ignoring the mens rea. At the time acts are committed the defendant could be under any amount of duress, affecting mental state and intention, thus possibly change the original offence, in the case of Steane assisting the enemy, this therefore needs to be considered before sentencing is measured.
It is also crucial to consider the Criminal Justice Act 1967, sec. 8; Jury’s are not bound by law to find that the defendant had intended or foresaw a consequence if it is a natural or probable consequence of the actions. This is decided in the case of R v Nedrick, to define the exact criminal offence in this case it is crucial to find the intentions that the defendant had proposed when committing the act, therefore needing to know the mental state to define the offence.
According to Article 6 of the HRA 1998 everyone is entitled to a fair trial, in order to achieve this, the mens rea therefore needs to be considered for the trial to be measured fairly and accurately as the mental state of a person will have an effect on their actions/judgements, take the case of R v Taafe, the courts found the defendant innocent as he believed he was smuggling a non illegal substance. Lord lane C. J. “[The respondent] is to be judged against the facts that he believed them to be. Had this indeed been currency and not cannabis, no offence would have been committed.” Had the mens rea of Taafe not been considered, the outcome would have been very different resulting in conviction for a crime that had not been intended or known of, had the mens rea only been considered at aggravation and mitigation Taafe would get a smaller sentence but would still be charged for a crime he was not guilty of.
Thus accounting for the various acts in place to protect the rights of everyone, criminals alike, it would not make sense to define criminal offences without reference to mental state. It has also long been established in the UK that there is a prerequisite that all elements of a crime must be considered including, furthermore for an act to be committed there has to be a mental element to establish what the intentions were, concluding mental state definitely needs to be considered before sentencing. The mental state of the defendant can often only be contingent from actions, and for the actions to be understood when defining the criminal offence the two must go in hand, act and mental state, as the components are intricately linked, mental state is inevitably relevant in defining criminal offences.
See defining what mens rea is and how it was developed
Dine, J, Gobert, j & Wilson, W Cases & Materials on Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2006, 5th Edition) page 144: The Mental Component of Crime: Mens Rea
the three states of mind required are intention, recklessness and negligence
Allen, M Textbook on Criminal Law (OUP 2007, 9th Edition) page 54: Intention (this also causes some confusion as intention is also difficult to define and it would appear courts change this with each case)
[1947] KB 997 Steane was charged with assisting the enemy during world war two, he had been threatened by the Germans that if he did not help them they would send his family to a concentration camp.
[1986] 3 All ER 1; the defendant put petrol through a letter box and then set fire to the house, a small child died in the fire, death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a direct result of the defendants actions.
[1984] AC 539; defendant caught smuggling cannabis into the country, claiming he believed the suitcase to contain money and nothing else, found not guilty as he did not know that the contents was a classified drug.