The+Crown+v+Clarke

Facts
Reward of £1000 offered for information leading to conviction of murderers of 2 policemen. Suggested also that a pardon might be available to any accomplice, not being a person to have actually committed the murder. Clarke and T were arrested in connection with one of the killings. Clarke made a statement and gave evidence, after which T and one other were convicted for that murder. Nobody was charged with the other murder. Clarke later claimed the reward for the first time.

Held

 * The Supreme Court found for the Crown. The Full Court of Supreme Court found for Clarke. The Crown appealed to the High Court.
 * All the judges used “knowledge” or absence/presence of an “intention to respond to the offer” as a key criterion in evaluating Clarke’s behaviour
 * NB that this is a unilateral contract and performance of the act required is the acceptance

Stark J:
When giving the information, Clarke did not act "in reliance upon the offer or with the intention of entering into any contract". While the convictions would not have come about without his evidence, and so the Crown obtained what it wanted, Clarke gave the information solely to clear himself

Isaacs ACJ:
"Motive, though not to be confused with intention, is very often strong evidence of that state of mind ... Motive can never usurp the legal place of intention".

The distinction between motive and intention is one that is worth remembering - I may enter into a contract - my motive being to put the other party at a commercial disadvantage - and maybe even out of business. All of that is irrelevant to the question as to my intention to enter into a contract. I might sue another in tort in the hope that an award of damages will put them out of business - but that hope or motive that I have is not a legally relevant consideration with regard to the award of damages.

So, whilst motive is not relevant, intention is necessary, and intention presupposes knowledge.

Higgins J
Clarke's motive and intention in giving the evidence was to protect himself, to clear himself of the charge of murder. Only after arrest, conviction and appeal by the others, did Clarke think of claiming the reward. It wasn't that he didn't know of the existence of the reward before then - he clearly did - it was just that he stated clearly in his evidence that he did not think about the reward at that time so clearly could not have given his evidence, intending to obtain the reward, or to enter into a contract with those who offered it.