Intention Flashcards
HYAM
A woman who was unhappy that her lover left her for another woman. The defendant poured fuel through the letter box. People died because of the fire even though the woman only wanted to scare her ex boyfriend’s new lover.
Courts said that the defendant is also likely for the “probable consequences” of their actions.
MOLONEY
A man and stepfather had a great relationship. They had a few drinks. They then had a competition to see who could put a gun together faster. The gun went off and killed the stepfather. Did Moloney want this to happen? No.
Courts said this narrowed the definition to “natural consequences”.
What are the natural consequences of a defendant’s action? It is a narrower thing. The best example, pregnancy is a natural consequence of intercourse but it is not a probability consequence.
HANCOCK AND SHANKLAND
Striking miners. Certain miners were returning to work, and H and S wanted to scare the miners who were returning to work. They threw a piece of concrete off a bridge and it hit a taxi; the driver was killed. They did not intend to kill the taxi driver.
“degrees of probability”
How likely this possible range of actions could be. The defendant should only be liable for a narrower ranger again.
NEDRICK
Facts similar to Hyam. He set a hotel on fire while drunk after being fired. There were people in the hotel, but no one died.
The court narrowed the test to “virtual certainty.”
WOOLIN
A father of a small child. The child wouldn’t stop crying. The father threw the child. The baby hit a hard surface and the baby died.
In Woolin, we have HYAM MALONEY, H&S and they are all HL authorities.
Nedrick is a CA decision. The CA used a substantial risk formulation. When the case got to the HL, the HL asserted the Nedrick test - “virtual certainty.”
