Intention

Question 1

What is the golden rule? (quote)

Answer 1

“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..”

Question 2

What is the golden rule in simple terms?

Answer 2

basically we don’t have an exact definition of intent, and judges shouldn’t elaborate for the jury

Question 3

Which case gives us the golden rule?

Answer 3

R v Moloney

Question 4

What are the 2 types of intention?

Answer 4

• Direct intention
• Indirect / oblique intention

Question 5

Where does the definition for direct intention come from?

Answer 5

R v Mohan [1976]

Question 6

What is the definition of direct intention? (quote)

Answer 6

“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”

Question 7

Does direct intention include when it is a means to an end?
- example

Answer 7

Yes

if you kill someone because you want their money and you’re first in line for inheritance, your end is the money, but you still intended to kill them

Question 8

When does indirect intention occur?

Answer 8

not D’s intention to kill someone, but they nevertheless realise that it is highly probable that the person will die

Question 9

Which case sets the first test for indirect intention?

Answer 9

DPP v Smith [1961] -> objective standard

Question 10

Which Act changes the test for indirect intention?
- which cases support this (2)

Answer 10

s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 -> changes it back to a subjective test

• Hyam v DPP [1975]
• R v Nedrick [1986]

Question 11

Which cases discuss the confusion in the law about indirect intention? (2)

Answer 11

• R v Moloney [1985]
• R v Hancock & Shankland [1986]

Question 12

Which case has set the current test for indirect intention?
- how many steps does it set out?

Answer 12

R v Woollin [1999]
- Indirect intention is a rule of evidence
- NOT a substantive rule of law

3 steps

Question 13

What is important about the 2nd step of the current test for indirect intention?
- which 2 cases support this?

Answer 13

• virtual certainty test
  
  • is a rule of evidence

• R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003]
• R v Stringer [2008]

Question 14

Which cases discuss motive and intention?
- what do they say about them?

Answer 14

• according to R v Moloney [1985] motive is not the same as intention
• BUT need to note that in R v Steane [1947] motive seems to be viewed as the same as intention

Question 15

What is transferred malice?
- case (1)

Answer 15

If I intend to hit A, but hit B instead, my ‘malice’ has been transferred to B

R v Latimer (1886)

Question 16

When does transferred malice not apply?
- case (1)

Answer 16

only applies if the mens rea of the intended crime is the same as that of the actual crime

R v Pembliton (1874)

Question 17

What can NOT occur with regards to transferred malice?

Answer 17

A double transfer cannot occur

AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1998]