Jurisprudence
Motive versus Intention
At a Glance ▪ Intention is the purpose with which an act is done; motive is the ulterior intent, the further purpose behind the immediate intent (Salmond). Intention looks to the act, motive to the end. ▪ General rule: motive is irrelevant to liability. A good motive does not excuse a crime, and a bad motive does not make a lawful act unlawful (Bradford Corporation v Pickles, 1895; Allen v Flood, 1898). ▪ Exceptions: malicious prosecution, malice defeating qualified privilege in defamation, conspiracy, some nuisance cases, private defence and good faith, and sentencing. ▪ Motive is relevant evidence (formerly Section 8 Evidence Act, now in the BSA). It assumes importance where the case rests on circumstantial evidence but is not essential where there is reliable direct evidence. ▪ Intention must be kept apart from knowledge and foresight (culpable homicide: Section 100 BNS, formerly Section 299 IPC). Mercy killing is the classic good-motive murder: motive may affect sentence, not guilt. |
Ask a friend in the kitchen what she is doing. 'Chopping onions.' Why? 'To make biryani.' Why? 'Because my mother is visiting.' Why that? 'Because I love her.' Every act sits in such a chain of purposes. The law, like an impatient examiner, usually stops after the first answer: what did you mean to do by this act? That purpose is intention; everything further along the chain is motive. A man who takes money from a till to buy medicine for a sick child intends to take the money; his motive is the child's welfare. He is still a thief. This note explains why the law separates the links, and where it looks further down the chain (see also Note 34).
Figure: Motive and intention as a chain of purposes: the act (taking money from a till), the intention (to take the money), the motive (to pay for a child's medicine) and a deeper motive, with the law usually stopping at the act and the intention while motive still counts in sentencing, malice, evidence and some defences
1. The Two Defined
Salmond defines intention as the purpose or design with which an act is done: the foreknowledge of the act, coupled with the desire of it, such that the foreknowledge and desire are the cause of the act (Note 34). He then distinguishes two kinds of intent. The immediate intent relates to the wrongful act itself; the ulterior intent is the further object for which the act is done. The ulterior intent is the motive. A man who steals bread to feed his hungry child has an immediate intent to take the bread and an ulterior intent to feed the child. For Salmond, motive is simply intention viewed further along the chain.
Classic Definitions ▪ Salmond (Jurisprudence): intention is the purpose or design with which an act is done; the immediate intent relates to the wrongful act itself, the ulterior intent (the motive) to the further purpose for which it is done (paraphrase). ▪ Bentham (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789): no motive is in itself good or bad; motives are called good or bad only by reference to their effects (paraphrase). ▪ Austin (Lectures on Jurisprudence): the motive is the wish or desire that prompts the will; intention concerns the act and the consequences the actor expects of it (paraphrase). |
The differences follow. Intention is proximate, motive remote. One act may spring from several motives at once, and the same motive (love for a child) may lead one parent to work overtime and another to steal. Intention is inferred from the act and its circumstances; motive is locked in the mind and often never known. And intention is ordinarily an ingredient of an offence, while motive is not.
2. The General Rule: Motive Is Irrelevant
In civil law a lawful act does not become unlawful because of a bad motive, nor is an unlawful act excused by a good one (Note 34).
Bradford Corporation v Pickles; Allen v Flood House of Lords, 1895 and 1898 Pickles: a landowner sank a shaft that intercepted underground water percolating to the Corporation's reservoirs, in order to force the Corporation to buy his land at his price. Since he had a right to deal with the water under his land, his motive, however unworthy, did not make the act unlawful. Allen v Flood: a trade union official induced an employer to discharge two shipwrights, lawfully and without breach of contract. He was not liable: an act lawful in itself does not become actionable because it is done maliciously. |
Criminal law applies the same rule from the other side. The offence of theft requires a dishonest intention, that is, an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; it does not ask why the thief wanted the gain. A Robin Hood who robs the rich to feed the poor commits robbery. In R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) shipwrecked sailors who killed and ate the cabin boy to survive were convicted of murder, though the sentence was commuted. Motives are hard to prove and easy to invent, and law protects people from harmful acts, leaving motives to morality (Note 88).
3. Where Motive Matters
The exceptions arise where the law makes a motive part of the definition of a wrong or a defence.
Exceptions to the irrelevance of motive ▪ Malicious prosecution. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant prosecuted him maliciously, that is, from some motive other than bringing an offender to justice, and without reasonable and probable cause. ▪ Defamation. A statement made on an occasion of qualified privilege (a reference, a complaint to the proper authority) is protected unless made with malice; an improper motive, such as spite, defeats the privilege (Horrocks v Lowe, House of Lords, 1975). ▪ Conspiracy. A combination to injure is actionable if its predominant purpose is to injure the plaintiff rather than to protect the combiners' own legitimate interests (Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. v Veitch, House of Lords, 1942). ▪ Nuisance. Where a use of land is otherwise reasonable, a malicious purpose may make it a nuisance: noise made deliberately to annoy a neighbour (Christie v Davey, 1893) and guns fired near a boundary to stop a neighbour's silver foxes from breeding (Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, 1936). ▪ Private defence and good faith. Force used in private defence must be used to defend, not to punish or take revenge. Many exceptions in criminal law protect acts done in good faith, which the criminal law defines in terms of due care and attention (formerly Section 52 IPC). ▪ Sentencing. Motive is a classic factor in the measure of punishment. Salmond named it first among the factors governing the measure of criminal liability (Note 34), and Machhi Singh (1983) listed the motive of a murder, such as a killing for hire or for gain, among the categories that may call for the extreme penalty. |
Pickles and the nuisance cases are usually reconciled thus: Pickles had an absolute right to the water, while a use of land affecting a neighbour is qualified by reasonableness, on which malice bears.
4. Motive as Evidence
Irrelevant to liability, motive is highly relevant to proof. Under the former Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, any fact which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant; the provision is carried into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. But the Supreme Court has consistently said that its weight depends on the kind of evidence. Where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes importance as one link in the chain. Where there is reliable direct evidence, such as a credible eyewitness, proof of motive is not essential, and its absence does not help the accused, because motive often lies hidden in the mind of the accused.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India, 1984 The Court laid down the five golden principles for a conviction on circumstantial evidence: the circumstances must be fully established; they must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; they must be conclusive in nature and tendency; they must exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; and the chain must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence. Motive is one of the circumstances such a chain commonly includes. |
5. Intention, Knowledge and Foresight
Intention must also be distinguished from its neighbours on the other side. Knowledge is awareness that a consequence will or is likely to follow; intention is aiming at it. Indian criminal law uses both. Culpable homicide (Section 100 BNS, formerly Section 299 IPC) is causing death with the intention of causing death, with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Murder (Section 101 BNS, formerly Section 300 IPC) likewise includes a knowledge limb, where the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death.
What of consequences a person does not desire but foresees as certain? A man who plants a bomb on an aircraft to destroy the cargo for insurance does not want the crew to die, but he knows they will. Such oblique intention is treated as intention. In R v Woollin (House of Lords, 1998) the jury was told it may find intention where death or serious harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's act and he appreciated that this was so. The bomber's motive (insurance money) is irrelevant; what matters is his mind's relation to the deaths.
6. Mercy Killing: The Good Motive Case
The hardest test is mercy killing. A son who, from compassion, ends the life of his suffering, terminally ill father intends death; his motive is love. In law it is murder. The criminal law gives weight to the victim's consent, not the killer's motive: under Exception 5 to the murder provision (formerly Section 300 IPC), culpable homicide is not murder when the person killed, being above eighteen, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. The good motive itself operates only at the stage of sentence and clemency under Arts. 72 and 161.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India; Common Cause v Union of India Supreme Court of India, 2011 and 2018 Aruna Shanbaug: the Court permitted passive euthanasia, the withdrawal of life support in appropriate cases under High Court supervision, while holding active euthanasia unlawful. Common Cause: the right to die with dignity is part of Art. 21; the Court recognised advance directives (living wills) with safeguards. Active euthanasia remains an offence whatever the motive; the line drawn is between withdrawing treatment and killing, not between good and bad motives. |
7. The Two Compared
Basis | Intention | Motive |
|---|---|---|
Meaning | The purpose with which the act is done (immediate intent) | The further purpose behind the intention (ulterior intent) |
Question answered | What did he mean to do? | Why did he want to do it? |
Relation to act | Proximate; part of the act's mental side | Remote; lies beyond the act |
Number | One immediate intent for an act | Often several, mixed motives |
Role in liability | Usually an ingredient of the offence or tort | Generally irrelevant (Pickles; Allen v Flood) |
Where it matters | Always, where the law requires mens rea | Malicious prosecution, defamation, conspiracy, nuisance, sentencing |
In evidence | Proved from conduct and circumstances | Relevant fact; important in circumstantial cases |
8. Evaluation
The irrelevance of motive is sound as a general rule: it keeps liability certain and stops wrongdoers pleading noble reasons. But it is a rule of liability, not of justice as a whole. Where the definition of a wrong turns on purpose, as in malice and conspiracy, motive must be examined, and a sentencing system that ignored it would treat the mercy killer and the contract killer alike. Motive is irrelevant to whether a person is liable, relevant to how guilt is proved, and often decisive to how much he is punished.
Memory Aid ▪ Analogy: the kitchen chain of 'why?'. Chopping onions (act), to make biryani (intention), because mother is visiting (motive), because I love her (deeper motive). The law usually stops at the first answer. ▪ One line: intention answers what; motive answers why. ▪ Where motive counts: 'My Dear Crafty Neighbour Prefers Good Sentences'. Malicious prosecution, Defamation (privilege), Conspiracy, Nuisance, Private defence, Good faith, Sentencing. Plus evidence. ▪ Evidence rule: circumstantial case, motive matters; eyewitness case, motive optional. |
Exam Corner: Likely Questions ▪ Distinguish motive from intention. 'Motive is irrelevant in law.' Discuss with exceptions. ▪ Explain Salmond's distinction between immediate and ulterior intent with illustrations. ▪ What is the evidentiary value of motive in a criminal trial? Distinguish cases of direct and circumstantial evidence. ▪ Is mercy killing murder under Indian law? Discuss the relevance of motive and consent. |
Exam Corner: MCQ Traps ▪ Bradford Corporation v Pickles (1895) and Allen v Flood (1898): a bad motive does not make a lawful act unlawful. ▪ Motive is Salmond's ulterior intent, not his immediate intent. ▪ Motive as a relevant fact: formerly Section 8 Evidence Act (now in the BSA); do not confuse it with Section 9 (explanatory facts). ▪ Mercy killing is murder; consent above eighteen may reduce it under Exception 5, but motive does not. ▪ The virtual certainty test for oblique intention is from R v Woollin (1998). |
9. Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What is the difference between motive and intention?
A. Intention is the immediate purpose with which an act is done, such as taking another's money. Motive is the further reason for it, such as paying for a child's medicine. The law normally asks about intention and ignores motive.
Q. Can a good motive be a defence to a crime?
A. No. A person who steals for charity or kills from compassion is still guilty. A good motive may reduce the sentence or support a plea for clemency, but it does not negative the offence.
Q. Is proof of motive necessary for a conviction?
A. No. Where there is reliable direct evidence, absence of motive does not matter. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive becomes an important link, though even there it is one circumstance among others.
See also: Note 34 (liability: intention, motive and negligence), Note 27 (punishment), Note 85 (fault versus strict liability), Note 88 (legal duty versus moral duty), Note 20 (law and morality).
SEO METADATA URL slug: motive-versus-intention SEO title: Motive versus Intention Meta description: Motive versus intention for judiciary exams: Salmond's immediate and ulterior intent, Bentham and Austin, the irrelevance of motive in Bradford Corporation v Pickles and Allen v Flood, the exceptions of malice, conspiracy and nuisance, motive as evidence and circumstantial evidence, intention and knowledge in culpable homicide, oblique intention and mercy killing. Keywords: motive versus intention, difference between motive and intention, Salmond immediate and ulterior intent, motive irrelevant Bradford Corporation v Pickles, Allen v Flood, malice qualified privilege, motive in circumstantial evidence, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, oblique intention Woollin, mercy killing euthanasia, judiciary exam jurisprudence |