Ratio Decidendi
Direct intent for a criminal attempt requires a decision by the defendant to bring about, insofar as it lies within their power, the proscribed consequence — namely, the commission of the full offence. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendant foresaw the consequence as probable or even as a virtual certainty; they must show the defendant chose and decided to bring it about. Recklessness as to the consequences of a criminal act cannot constitute the mens rea of attempt. The intent must be purpose-based: the defendant must have the specific consequence as their aim, even if it is not their primary desire.
তথ্য
A police constable signalled Mohan to stop his car. Instead of stopping, Mohan accelerated the car towards the officer, who had to jump out of the way to avoid being struck. Mohan was charged with attempting, by wanton driving, to cause bodily harm. The question at trial and on appeal was whether the offence of attempt required proof of a specific intent to cause the harm, or whether recklessness as to that consequence was sufficient.
রায়ের সারসংক্ষেপ
The Court of Appeal (James LJ, Roskill LJ, and Ormrod LJ) dismissed Mohan's appeal but in doing so articulated a definitive definition of intent for criminal attempts. Mohan had been required to stop his vehicle by a police constable. Instead, he accelerated his car towards the officer, who had to throw himself out of the way to avoid being struck. Mohan was charged with attempting to cause bodily harm by wanton driving. The issue was whether the prosecution had to prove a specific intent to cause harm or whether recklessness sufficed. The Court held that attempt requires specific intent — a decision to achieve the proscribed consequence. Recklessness will not do. James LJ formulated the classic definition of direct intent: a decision to bring about the commission of the offence, i.e. to achieve the consequences making up the actus reus. Where the offence requires a consequence (such as bodily harm), the defendant must have decided to bring that consequence about. This is true whether the consequence was the defendant's purpose or a necessary and known by-product of achieving their purpose. Foresight alone is not intent, even very high probability of a consequence. The verdict was upheld because the facts supported an inference that Mohan had decided to drive at and injure the officer. The Mohan formulation was later reinforced by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (s.1(1)) and remains the definitive statement of intent for attempts.
মূল উদ্ধৃতি
"A direct intent means a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the commission of the offence — no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not."
— James LJ at 11
"For an attempt, there must be an intent to produce the specific result and recklessness as to whether that result is achieved is not enough."
— James LJ at 11
"The intent must include the intent to do the act which constitutes the actus reus of the full offence and also the intent to bring about the consequence which is an element of the full offence."
— James LJ at 11
পরবর্তী ব্যবহার
Followed as the leading definition of intent for criminal attempts. Confirmed in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1), which provides that a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if they do 'an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence' with intent to commit it.
Applied in R v Whybrow (1951) 35 Cr App R 141, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that attempting to cause bodily harm by electric shock required proof of intent to cause the harm, not merely recklessness.
Considered in R v Khan [1990] 1 WLR 813 (CA), where the Court of Appeal discussed the relationship between Mohan's intent requirement and the mens rea for completed rape in the context of attempted rape, holding intent to penetrate without consent was required.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help