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