Foresight of Consequences

Question 1

Moloney

Answer 1

• D shot step father in ‘quick on the draw’ incident.

- Foresight of consequences is not intention; it is evidence of intention.

Question 2

Hancock and Shankland

Answer 2

• Miner dropped lumps of concrete onto the road; killing a taxi driver.
• Greater the probability of a consequence was foreseen and if that consequence was foreseen, the greater the probability is that consequence was also intended.

Question 3

Nedrick

Answer 3

• Poured paraffin through letter box, causing fire in the house in which a child died.
• Jury not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated this.

Question 4

Woollin

Answer 4

• Threw baby at pram, causing its death.
• The direction in Nedrick shouldn’t use the word ‘infer.’ Instead the jury should be told it is entitled to find intention.

Question 5

Re A (Conjoined Twins)

Answer 5

• Doctors wanted to operate on conjoined twins but knew this would cause one of them to die.
• Court thought that Woollin made it law that foresight of consequences is intention.

Question 6

Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 6

• Threw V into a river where he drowned.
• Woollin meant that foresight of consequences is not intention. It is a rule of evidence.
• If a jury decides that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury then it is entitled to find intention but it does not have to do so.

Question 7

Cunningham

Answer 7

• Subjective Recklessness
• Where the D knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes the risk.
• D didn’t know the risk of gas flowing into D2’s house and therefore didn’t know the risk of it - not guilty.