Rupert has been charged with murder following the unlawful killing of Patrick due to the planting of the bomb on the plane. The trial of Rupert will be held at the Crown Court and the burden of proof will be on the prosecution to prove the "actus reus" ie the actual killing and consequently the "mens rea", the mental element of committing the crime.
Murder has been defined in the common law, as there is no specific statute for it. By definition it means-the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen peace with malice afterthought". For a successful conviction of murder the jury must be convinced that there was intention to kill. Intention has been subject to confusion over the years but now following the decision in Woolin 1998 the law is potentially more settled.
Intention represents the most blameworthy and culpable state of mind. Therefore it is essential that there should be a clear definition of intention as it is the requisite mens rea for the most serious crimes eg the crime in question here, murder. Thus it is the finding of the mens rea of the intention on the part of the defendant that will secure a conviction for such serious as opposed to less serious offences eg murder instead of manslaughter.
Firstly it is important to point out that intention is NOT a desire eg in Cunliffe v Goodman 1950: Intention is a state of affairs .that a person does more than merely contemplate.
Secondly intention is NOT a motive: Chandler v DPP 1964 which contrasts with the case of Steine 1947 where the motive of the defendant appeared to be taken into account. However it is also important to point out that motive maybe relevant in racially motivated cases and taken into consideration in all cases on a finding of guilt in the sentencing process, unless a mandatory sentence applies eg in murder,.
However in the case of Rupert there are certain factors that make this case particularly distinguishable.