Question 1

Is motive the same as intention?

Accepted Answer

No. Motive is the reason *why* a person commits a crime (e.g., greed, revenge), whereas intention is their aim or purpose to bring about the prohibited consequence. A good motive, such as ending a loved one's suffering, does not negate a criminal intention to kill. The law is concerned with what the defendant intended to do, not why they did it.

Question 2

What's the difference between the old *Caldwell* recklessness and the current *R v G* recklessness?

Accepted Answer

*Caldwell* used an objective test: would a reasonable person have foreseen the risk? This could convict a defendant who genuinely did not see the risk themselves. *R v G* overruled this for criminal damage (and the principle is now applied generally), establishing a subjective test: did the defendant *themselves* foresee the risk and take it unreasonably? This is seen as fairer as it judges the defendant based on their own state of mind and awareness.

Question 3

If the mens rea happens after the actus reus is complete, can there still be a conviction?

Accepted Answer

Generally, no, as they must coincide. However, the courts have developed exceptions to prevent absurd outcomes. In *Fagan v MPC*, the defendant accidentally drove onto a policeman's foot (actus reus without mens rea) but then refused to move (forming the mens rea). The court viewed the actus reus as 'continuing' until the mens rea was formed, thus establishing coincidence and liability.

Mens rea

What you need to know

Mens rea