1
Q
R v Moloney [1985]
A
- D and his stepfather got drunk, were playing around with loading guns -> stepfather challenged D to shoot the gun, and D’s shot killed his stepfather
- convicted of murder -> appeal went to HL
- appeal was allowed -> he had not intended to kill his stepfather
- “The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent..”
- stated that the law following Hyam was in a state of confusion and needed clarification -> foresight of a probable consequence is not intention, it is simply evidence from which the jury can infer intention
- Lord Bridge sets out 2 questions for if jury need help
1. was death or serous injury a natural consequence of D’s actions
2. did D foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his action? - “intention is something quite distinct from motive or desire”
2
Q
R v Mohan [1976]
A
- D was driving over speed limit and V (police officer) tried to stop him by standing in his way
- D initially slowed, but then 10 yards from V accelerated in an attempt to hit V
- V moved out of the way to avoid being hit
- D charged on 3 counts
1) attempted to cause the officer gbh with the intent to do so
2) intentionally drove wantonly in an effort to cause bodily harm
3) engaged in reckless and dangerous driving - D appealed (and won) on first 2 counts -> issue of definition of direct intent came up
- a “specific intent” was defined as “a decision to bring about a certain consequence”
- to prove MR, specific intent has to be proven -> knowledge, foresight, recklessness are all not enough for the required MR
- “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence which it is alleged the accused attempted to commit, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not” -> definition of direct intent
3
Q
DPP v Smith [1961]
A
- S was ordered by a police officer to stop but he accelerated instead (he had stolen goods in his car)
- officer jumped onto his car, but fell off after S swerved the car, and was killed by another oncoming vehicle
- S was convicted of murder -> appealed to CoA -> then to HoL
- D “must as a reasonable man have contemplated GBH was likely to result”
- objective test for indirect intention was upheld by HoL
4
Q
Hyam v DPP [1975]
A
- D poured petrol through the letterbox of her ex-boyfriend’s new fiancee and set fire to it in order to scare her
- D then drove off and didn’t tell anyone about the fire
- 2 young children died -> D tried for murder -> argued she didn’t intend to kill
- didn’t overrule Smith
- did expand the test for indirect intention, stating that foresight of a serious risk / highly probable risk is sufficient -> intent to harm not needed
- one of the judges argued that it was morally indistinguishable between knowing there is a chance for GBH to occur and intending for it to occur
5
Q
R v Hancock and Shankland [1986]
A
- Ds were miners on strike -> blocked the road to prevent work
- whilst blocking road, taxi driver was struck by lumps of concrete (used to block road) and was killed
- Ds held that they only intended to block the road
- trial judge directed jury in accordance with Moloney - jury convicted
- CoA quashed conviction -> HoL upheld this quashing
- Lord Scarman: “the Moloney guidelines as they stand are unsafe and misleading”
- the guidelines are too confusing and do not refer to the degree of probability required -> the greater the probability of a consequence occurring, the greater the probability of it being foreseen, and the greater the possibility of it being intended
6
Q
R v Nedrick [1986]
A
- similar facts to Hyam -> petrol through letterbox, child dies
- trial judge convicted -> direction of foreseeing the possibility of serious harm occurring
- CoA quashed conviction -> stated that this was a misdirection
- jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer intention unless they are satisfied that they felt sure that death or serious bodily injury was a virtual certainty of D’s actions and that D knew this
7
Q
R v Woollin [1999]
A
- D threw his 3-month old baby on the floor when it wouldn’t stop crying -> it died
- Court accepted D didn’t intend to harm, but must have foreseen that serious harm was probable
- “Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the Jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case”
- the only difference with Nedrick was ‘infer’ being changed to ‘find’
- conviction was changed to one of manslaughter -> judge had misdirected by using ‘substantial risk’
- 3 step test established for indirect intention
- was death or serious bodily injury a virtual certainty barring some unforeseen intervention? (objective test)
- did D appreciate that it was a virtual certainty? (subjective test)
- if both are ‘yes’, then jury may find intention but do not have to (jury discretion)
8
Q
R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003]
A
- Ds threw V into the river, V drowned
- Ds knew V couldn’t swim but argued they didn’t intend to kill V
- Judge directed that the virtual certainty test was a rule of law rather than evidence
- conviction was appealed, but appeal failed because it was deemed that there was no real difference between rule of evidence & law
- The test in Woollin is a rule of evidence –> appreciation of virtual certainty of death or serious harm does NOT necessarily amount to intention for murder in law
9
Q
R v Stringer [2008]
A
- D lit a fire in his house that killed his brother
- Judge conflated 2 points on intention, but Court held that the jury had understood the facts well enough to convict -> appeal was rejected
10
Q
R v Steane [1947]
A
- During WWII (D) was a British national who was coerced by the Nazis into making propaganda broadcasts
- He feared for the safety of his family and believed that non-compliance would lead to their harm
- convicted of ‘doing acts likely to assist the enemy with intent to assist the enemy’ by a lower court
- this case allowed motive to creep in and be conflated with intention
-> even though his motivation was to do good (protect his family) his intention was to help the enemy - D won his appeal as prosecution failed to prove his intention “beyond reasonable doubt”
11
Q
R v Latimer (1886)
A
- D got in a fight with another man, and took off his belt to hit the man with it
- it ricocheted off and hit V in the face
- laid down the principle of transferred malice
- D’s MR towards the man was transferred to V -> so D was convicted
- transferred malice is allowed for non-murder cases too e.g. OAP
12
Q
R v Pembliton (1874)
A
- an offence against property was intended but an offence against a person was committed
- these are two completely different offences with different MR
- transferred malice does NOT apply
13
Q
AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1998]
A
- B stabbed M in the stomach, knowing she was pregnant with his child
- M went to hospital and prematurely gave birth to the child, which lived for 121 days and then died due to complications caused by premature birth
- the foetus had been cut by the wound, but that wasn’t what caused the death
- a double transfer of malice cannot occur
- D’s malice towards the mother couldn’t be transferred to the unborn foetus and then to the child
- “there must be some compatibility between the original intention and the actual occurrence” - Lord Mustill
Law cases - Criminal
flashcards
Decks in class (13)
# Cards
