| Rex v. Scofield (1784) | |
|---|---|
| Court | Not specified |
| Decided | 1784 |
| Defendant | Scofield |
| Plaintiff(s) | Not specified |
| Citation(s) | Cald. 397 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action(s) | The case involved Scofield placing a lit candle into flammable material in a house with the intent to burn it down, but the larger fire never happened. Lord Mansfield held that the incomplete but intended act of arson constituted a crime, emphasizing that "The intent may make an act, innocent in itself, criminal..." |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lord Mansfield |
| Case opinions | |
| The case introduced the concept of attempt in common law, focusing on the intent of the actor rather than the completion of the criminal act. | |
Rex v. Scofield, Cald. 397 (1784), is a British criminal law case that made attempt part of the common law, emphasizing the intent of an actor over the incomplete criminal act.[1] Scofield lit a candle and placed it into flammable material in a house with the intent to burn it down, but the larger fire never happened.[1]: 669 Finding crime in the incomplete but intended act of arson, Lord Mansfield held that "completion of an act, criminal in itself, [was not] necessary to constitute criminality", and "The intent may make an act, innocent in itself, criminal..."[1]: 669