Ryan v R: What is intent when it comes to murder?

Most of us have had a hero growing up, and we may even have tried to become like them. In 1967, a 20-year-old Australian man tried to copy the actions of his hero, but ended up committing a murder he never intended.

This case would become a precedent for the law on murder in Australia, specifically in relation to the intention that is necessary for a person to be guilty of the most serious crime in the books.

The facts

The entire thing started when Robert Patrick Ryan read a novel, in which the hero robbed a service station by using a gun and tying up the attendant.

The fictional robber then invested the money in the Irish sweepstakes and won a fortune.

He used the winnings to repay the service station owner and help his parents.

This story had a big impact on Ryan, who was similarly motivated to assist his struggling parents.

Ryan had no previous convictions. He possessed the gun that was ultimately in the crime since he was 14, and always used it responsibly.

But after shortening the gun and carving his hero’s name into it, he concocted a plan to recreate the fictional events in real life.

He recruited a friend to act as an accomplice – and at 11pm they rode together on a motorbike to a nearby service station.

There was only one man, the garage assistant, in the station when the pair arrived.

White, Ryans friend, waited outside while Ryan went in with his gun.

He demanded money from the assistant, who opened a draw and acceded to his demands.

Ryan then ordered the terrified assistant to turn around and place his hands behind his back.

The assistant complied, yet Ryan advanced towards him still pointing the gun.

The assistant then crouched, pulled-out his hands and turned around.

With the gun in one hand and rope in the other, Ryan jumped back in surprise, unintentionally discharging the gun and fatally shooting the hapless assistant.

Should Ryan be considered guilty of murder?

Ryan admitted that he was guilty of manslaughter but denied being guilty of murder.

His friend pleaded guilty to manslaughter and this was accepted by the prosecution, however Ryan’s offer was refused.

Ryan claimed that the killing was accidental.

He told the police “I didn’t mean to kill him; it was an accident.”

Ryan claimed that didn’t intend to pull the trigger, describing his actions as pure reflex.

The offence of murder requires two things: the guilty act or actus reus (of physically killing a person) and the necessary state of mind or mens rea, which in the case of murder essentially requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

The act must be a voluntary one, and this voluntariness is an essential ingredient in the crime of murder.

Killing a person while undertaking an unlawful act, even if there was no intention to kill or cause GBH, is manslaughter.

Did the actions of Ryan amount to murder?

According to the High Court, the answer ‘yes’.

The Court re-stated the common law principle that a person is not guilty of a crime requiring mens rea if it was done without the exercise of free will.

Ryan’s actions, however, did not fit into the same category of involuntariness as someone acting under duress (ie the threat of force), or someone suffering from a seizure, whereby they cannot be said to have acted freely and voluntarily.

Justice Windeyer explained that: “death was caused not merely by the pulling of the trigger, but by many acts of the accused: loading the rifle, cocking it, presenting it, pulling the trigger”.

It was the last in this long chain of voluntary acts that made the conduct lethal.

Saying the action was automatic should not excuse a fully conscious person who, by his own free will, put himself in a situation where he loaded, cocked, and pointed a gun at another person, according to the Learned Justice.

Perhaps the Court wanted to send a message that anyone who uses violence to commit serious offences does so at their own risk, and will be held responsible if their actions, even inadvertently, resulted in injury or death to others.

To read more articles like this one, jump onto our NSW Legal Articles page or ‘like’ us on facebook.

Author Image

About Ugur Nedim

Ugur Nedim is an Accredited Specialist Criminal Lawyer and Principal at Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, Sydney’s Leading Firm of Criminal & Traffic Defence Lawyers.