Relationship between Intention and Motive

In every criminal case, the question on motive and/or intention of the accused always arose. Sometimes, it remains as an unsolved mystery why the accused committed the crime.

Section 8 of Evidence Act provides that:

8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

(1)   Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

(2)   The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if the conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

Even though intention and motive are, most of the times, related to each other, but they are two different things. According to R v Steane, “…the motive of a man’s act and his intention in doing the act are in law difference”. Furthermore, in Lower Perak Co-Operative Housing Society Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri, Edgar Joseph JR SCJ in his judgment, held that:

“We need hardly add that there is a fundamental difference between intention and motive; intention means seeking to do something and is connected to purpose or object whereas motive is concerned with the reason for doing something.”

However, one still can be charged and convicted to a crime he committed even without motive. As in the case of Public Prosecutor v Oh Laye Koh, held that:

“The element of 'intention' is rarely, if ever, proved by direct evidence; it is inevitably to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. In this respect, 'intention' is to be distinguished from 'motive', even though the presence of a motive may bolster the inference that an intention to commit the offence was existent. The absence of motive, however, need not necessarily mean that no intention was present.”

Next, in Public Prosecutor v Azilah Bin Hadri & Ors, the accused were charged for the murder of a Mongolian woman, Altantuya Shaariibuu. The court held that the first and second accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to death while the third accused was acquitting and discharging.

“The way the deceased came about her death is very tragic indeed. There can be no doubt that whoever perpetrated this despicable and unthinkable act of blasting on the deceased must have intended to completely vanish the related evidence into the thin air. Whatever his motive was, it is a matter of law that the 'motive', although relevant has never been the essential to constitute murder. The question for which I am to determine at this stage is who could have possibly connected with the death of the deceased.”

. . .

“Even if the third accused can be inferred as having had any 'motive' in the light of all the blackmailing letters of the deceased it cannot be made a basis for conviction of him without any direct or circumstantial evidence of his participation in any manner in the commission of offence.” 

Later, the first and second accused appeal to Court of Appeal against this decision and the appeal was allowed.

As conclusion, the most important elements in criminal case are actus reus and mens rea (intention). Therefore even the element of motive was absent, it is not necessary that the prosecution case will collapse, however if the intention absent definitely might destroyed prosecution case. It also depends on circumstantial evidence and fact of the each case.

Written by NurSyahirah