R v Steane [1947] KB 997

Facts

• James Steane, a British citizen living in Germany before World War II, was charged with performing acts likely to assist the enemy under the Defence (General) Regulations 1939.
• During the war, Steane worked for a German broadcasting company, making propaganda broadcasts.
• He claimed he acted out of fear for the safety of his wife and children, who were held in Germany.
• The prosecution argued that his broadcasts aided the enemy, regardless of his reasons.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury to focus on whether Steane’s actions were likely to assist the enemy, rather than his specific intent.
2. Whether the defendant’s intent to protect his family, as opposed to aiding the enemy, was sufficient to negate the required mens rea for the offence.
3. Whether acting under stress or duress should affect the determination of criminal intent.

Decision

• The trial court convicted Steane.
• The Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the jury was misdirected on the issue of intent.
• The appellate court found that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the defendant’s specific intent to assist the enemy, even under stress.
• The court recognised a distinction between actions done with the intent to aid the enemy and those primarily intended to protect one’s family.

Legal Principles

• Criminal responsibility requires proof of the defendant’s specific intent, particularly for offences requiring a particular state of mind.
• The prosecution bears the burden of proving intent beyond reasonable doubt.
• There is a critical distinction between acts performed with criminal intent and those performed primarily to avoid harm due to stress or coercion.
• R v Steane highlights the importance of examining the defendant’s true intent when actions are influenced by external pressures or threats.

Conclusion

R v Steane established that intent remains central to criminal liability, even in cases involving stress or coercion, requiring a careful assessment of the defendant's purpose and safeguarding against convictions based solely on the consequences of actions performed under duress.