Good summary at e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention of the problem as to whether a defendant has the necessary 'oblique intention' (or ' or indirect intention) that constitutes mens rea for murder.
Another Good summary at R v Woollin [1999] AC 82, which remains the leading precedent used when the courts and juries are considering oblique intention.
- The defendant threw his three month old baby to the ground in frustration when it would not stop crying, leading to the baby dying from a fractured skull. The court accepted that the defendant did not intend to cause death or harm to the child but that the defendant foresaw there was a risk of causing serious harm to the baby as a result of his actions.
- The original trial judge directed the jury that oblique intention exists if there is 'an appreciation of a substantial risk of injury', which resulted in the jury deciding that exposing somebody to a risk of harm was sufficient to amount to intention. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal and then the House of Lords to consider whether this was the correct way to define intention.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the murder conviction; however upon appeal, the House of Lords overturned the conviction for murder and substituted it for manslaughter, holding that the original trial judge had enlarged the mens rea element for murder by introducing the question of whether the defendant foresaw a substantial risk.
Compare and contrast R v Hyam with R v Nedrick
R v Hyam [1975] AC 55 House of Lords
The appellant had been having a relationship with a Mr Jones. Mr. Jones then took up with another woman Mrs Booth and they were soon to be married. On hearing this news, the appellant drove to Mrs Booth's house at 2.00am and poured petrol through the letter box and ignited it with matches and newspaper. She then drove home and did not alert anyone of the incident. Mrs Booth and her young son managed to escape the fire but her two daughters were killed. The trial judge directed the jury:
"If you are satisfied that when the accused set fire to the house she knew that it was highly probable that this would cause (death or) serious bodily harm then the prosecution will have established the necessary intent."
"If you are satisfied that when the accused set fire to the house she knew that it was highly probable that this would cause (death or) serious bodily harm then the prosecution will have established the necessary intent."
The jury convicted of murder. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed to the House of Lords on the grounds that knowledge that a certain consequence was a highly probable consequence does not establish an intent to produce that result but is only evidence from which a jury may infer intent.
Held:3:2 decision. The appellant's conviction for murder was upheld as there was no misdirection. e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Hyam
"If when the accused performed the act of setting fire to the house, he knew that it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily injury to somebody inside the house, even though he did not desire it - desire to bring that result about - he is guilty or murder."
The jury convicted of murder and the defendant appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction.
Held: There was a clear misdirection. The Court of Appeal reviewed the cases of Moloney and Hancock & Shankland and formulated a new direction from the two decisions.
Lord Lane CJ: "the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer 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." e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Nedrick
Held:3:2 decision. The appellant's conviction for murder was upheld as there was no misdirection. e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Hyam
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 Court of Appeal
The appellant held a grudge against Viola Foreshaw. He went to her house in the middle of the night poured paraffin through her letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire. The trial was held before the judgment was delivered in Moloney. The judge directed the jury as follows:"If when the accused performed the act of setting fire to the house, he knew that it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily injury to somebody inside the house, even though he did not desire it - desire to bring that result about - he is guilty or murder."
The jury convicted of murder and the defendant appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction.
Held: There was a clear misdirection. The Court of Appeal reviewed the cases of Moloney and Hancock & Shankland and formulated a new direction from the two decisions.
Lord Lane CJ: "the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer 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." e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Nedrick
R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 House of Lords
Defendant accidentally shot his step father killing him - defendant's conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter. http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Moloney.php
No comments:
Post a Comment