Criminal law- intention
R v Moloney
D and his father engaged in a drunken competition to see which of them could load a shotgun faster than the other, D won so they challenged to fire the gun, he did killing the stepfather instantly.
Hyam v DPP
D poured petrol through her ex-boyfriend's new fiancee's letter box and ignited it. D did not warn anyone. The fire killed two young children. D claimed she only intended to frighten booth and not kill anyone. held that a person had the requisite MR for murder if they knowingly committed an act which was aimed at someone which was committed with the intention of causing death or serious harm
R v hancock and shankland
Ds were miners who threw a concrete block from a bridge onto the motorway below. it struck a taxi that was carrying a working miner and killed the driver. the Ds argued that they only intended to block the road, not to kill or cause GBH. Ds was convicted of manslaughter. held that intention was not to be equated to foresight of consequences. but intention could be established if there was evidence of foresight
R v nedrick
a child had burned to death where D had put a petrol bomb through the letter box, D stated that he only wanted to frighten the owner of the house. lord lane suggested when determining if the D had the necessary intent, it might be helpful for a jury to ask themselves two questions:
1. how probable was the consequence which resulted from the Ds voluntary act
2. did he foresee that consequence
R v Woollin
woollin threw his three-month-old baby on the floor in frustration when it would not stop crying, the court accepted that D did not intend to cause death or harm to the child but that the defendant foresaw there was a risk of cause serious harm to the baby. held that he was guilt for manslaughter, should use the 'virtual reality' test when considering oblique intention
R v mathews and alleyne
Ds threw V into a river who drowned and died. Ds argued that although they knew the V could not swim they did not intend for the victim to die. the judge gave the direction that the jury must find D guilty if they had the foresight that V was virtually certain to die or suffer serious harm. held that VC does not necessarily amount to intention for murder
R v MD
D drove X (the killer) to Vs home here he was murdered. D was convicted as an accessory
R v Steane
steane was an actor living in Germany leading up to WW2. he was rested and forced to make broadcasts on Germany behalf by joseph goebbels. he was convicted of 'doing acts likely to assist the enemy with intent to assist the enemy by a lower court. held there was no intention to assist the enemy
Re A (conjoined twins)
The courts must address the matter purely on the welfare of the children, holding that it would benefit both children to go ahead. the operation could not constitute as murder
what is the difference between subjective and objective fault?
- Subjective fault – what was D thinking when s/he committed the act? What did they intend/believe? Were they aware of potential risks and what was their attitude to those risks?
- Note both Intention and Recklessness are subjectively assessed
- Objective fault – What would the reasonable person in D’s situation have known or foreseen
what are the two types of intention?
- Direct Intention - Your aim or purpose
- Indirect or Oblique Intention - Necessary side effect or means to an end
what is the meaning of direct intention?
- Ordinary common sense meaning - not legally defined
- R v Moloney [1985] AC 905
- The golden rule – the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent and leave it to the jury’s good sense
what is the meaning of indirect intention?
Meaning of this type of intention has been unclear
what is the debate reguarding the role of foresight?
- Definitional Approach - Foresight (of a certain level) = Intent
- Evidential Approach - Foresight (of a certain level) may be evidence of intention but it is not equivalent to intention. but this may lead to intention.
what is the current law on indirect intention?
- Level of foresight – Virtual Certainty
- Changed Infer to Find the jury 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
what are some example cases on indirect intention?
matthews and alleyne- uses the definitional approach
R v MD- only in exceptional cases is a woolin direction appropriate
what are the rules around motive and intention?
Motive – the reason for doing what you do – generally not taken into consideration when determining liability. See
Mohan
So a mercy killing is still murder. However some cases seem to take motive into account – see R v Steane
A (Conjoined Twins)