What does Intent Mean?

I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that for me to be convicted of a crime, it needs to be demonstrated that I intended to commit that crime. For example if I along with two or three friends are in a bar and one of my friends says "I am going to have to rob a jewellery store to pay next month's bills" - that is not a crime. If after a few beers we all start to fantasize about robbing a jewellery store - that is not a crime. If a stranger joins our table, listens in on our conversation and gives a few helpful tips as to where to buy a few guns or dynamite to blow up the safe - my friends and I have not committed a crime. No matter how serious the stranger thinks we are - if we are just talking - no crime has been committed. It is only when we start to take action on that list of things to do could it be conceived that we were going to commit a crime. If I buy a gun, after going through all of the appropriate steps, in spite of my wild speculation in a bar drinking with friends and one stranger - that is not a crime.

The Law Dictionary when discussing intent says it can be defined " as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will result in a specific outcome' (Law Dictionary). The Canadian Encyclopaedia states that " there is no criminal responsibility unless the guilty mind required by the offense can be proven." That is (I think) someone cannot be found guilty unless it is proven that they intended to commit a crime or that there is a reasonable assumption that my actions would have caused a crime (e.g. drinking and driving).

I have two questions: (1) if the only witness to our conversation about robbing that jewellery store is the stranger who joined us and who gave a few helpful hints, regardless of whether or not he is an uncover policeman - does his testimony have more weight than my pleads of innocence? And (2) is the burden of proof as to intent lower for acts of proposed terrorism than other types of crime. I ask these questions after reading some of the testimony from the police officer involved in the trial of the young couple who are alleged to have threatened to blow up the Legislature in Victoria, B.C.

I can appreciate that one cannot allow people who are going to commit a crime or kill people to do the act before they are arrested. That strategy did not work out well in the Air India disaster. Clearly there must be a point when there is clear intent to do harm. And that intent can be proven. On the other hand it seems to me to be a slippery slope when the primary evidence appears to be coming from one individual who I assume in consultation with his superiors gets to decide that these folks are actually capable of blowing something up.

I suspect that in criminal cases the standards of proof are well established in Common Law and in precedence. Everyone knows what intent means. With the exception of cases where the alleged criminal demonstrates mental health or developmental concerns, the issue of intent is seldom an issue. I also suspect that in cases where a terrorism act is alleged to have been discussed and planned - the guidelines are far less clear. For judges, Crown Attorneys and defense lawyers it is a brand new world.

I hope someone is working on some clear guidelines. I think we are going to need them