Intent

Question 1

Dpp v Smith

Answer 1

D ordered by police officer to stop car containing stolen goods. D drove off and officer jumped onto car and died.
D convicted of murder. Hol held objective test applicable to MR of intent for murder. Where accused is capable of forming an intent in that he is not insane or suffering from dim resp.

Question 2

Mohan

Answer 2

Poileofficer saw car driven by D, car slowed down as officer stood in oath and then accelerated at officer who jumped out of way
Defined intention as ‘ decision to bring about, in so far as it lies with the accused power no matter whether the accused desired consequences or not

Question 3

Moloney

Answer 3

D shot step farther in competition to see who was faster at loading a gun.
Lord bridge stated foresight of consequence are only evident of intention. 2 stage test for juries: was death or injury and natural consequence of D’s act? Did d foresee that consequence as being a result?

Question 4

Hancock and shankland

Answer 4

D’s minors on strike. Dropped lumps of concrete onto road killing driver.
Held that the great the probability of a consequence the more likely the consequence was forseen and intended

Question 5

Nedrick

Answer 5

Poured parafin through letter box causing fire and child’s death.
COA held test for jury: how probable was the consequence which resulted in D’s voluntary act? And did D foresee the consequence ? This was a virtual certainty and d guilty of murder

Question 6

Woolin

Answer 6

D threw a baby towards Pram which was against wall baby died. G of murder, actions were a virtual certainty.
Lords state questions in nedrick not helpful and held word ‘find’ should be used rather then ‘infer’

Question 7

Mathews and alleyne

Answer 7

D’s three v into a river after robbing him and we’re aware he could not swim. G of murder.
Judge directed jury: if drowning has a virtual certainty and D’s appreciated that then they must have had the intention of killing him