Intentions (Specific Intent) Flashcards
What case defined intention?
Mohan 1975
What does the case of Mohan 1975 define intention as?
to bring about a prohibited consequence no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not
What does the definition of intention under Mohan 1975 make clear?
that the defendants motive or reason for doing the act is not relevant
What section and Act illustrates that it does not matter if the defendant had motive for doing the act?
s.18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1961
What does s.18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1961 illustrate ?
that for this offence, the defendant must wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The Mens Rea is that the defendant must intend to cause GBH or intend to resist arrest. if the D intended neither then cannot be guilty of offence
Other than the definition of intention what else does Mohan 1975 make clear?
that motive is not the same as intention and is not relevant in deciding whether the defendant had intention.
What is an example when explaining that motive is not the same as intention and is not relevant in deciding whether the defendant had intention?
for example, a person might feel very strongly that the banking system is causing poverty in poorer nations. If they then stole millions from a bank to give to the poor then his motive is to make sure that the poor receive money. This is irrelevant in deciding whether the defendant had the Mens Rea for theft.
In the majority of cases what time of intent to defendants have?
they have direct intent
What does direct intent mean?
this means that he intends the specific consequence to occur
What is a quick example of explaining direct intent?
D aims gun at V, pulls the trigger, V dies. D has direct intent to kill V
What does oblique intent mean?
this is when the defendant intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another thing
Quick example of oblique intent
D intends to frighten someone to stop them from going to work. Consequence the driver of the car was killed.
-Hancock and Shankland 1986
What is the main problem with proving intention?
in cases where the defendants main aim was not the prohibited consequence
When may D be guilty of even if their main aim was not the prohibited consequence?
if D foresaw that he would also cause those consequences
What is it known as when D can be guilty if they foresee the consequences of their actions?
‘foresight of consequences’
What is an example of ‘foresight of intentions”?
where the defendant decides to set fire to his shop in order to claim insurance. Although his main aim is to damage the shop and get insurance, unfortunately members of staff are in the shop and are seriously injured.
what section is the offence under for GBH?
s.18
What is the starting point for foresight of consequences ?
Criminal Justice Act 1967
What did s.8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 do?
this statute reversed the position of the objective test on oblique intent to subjective
What terms does the Criminal Justice Act 1967 use for jury’s to determine whether a person has committed an offence?
If the actions of D has a ‘natural and probable consequence’ to the offence
Under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 what is the important point made?
that D must intent or foresee a result
For example, for in a murder case what must D do which will make him guilty of murder?
must intend or foresee death or serious injury
What is the leading case on the foresight of consequences?
Woollin 1998
What was the first case under the foresight of consequences?
DPP v Smith 1961
What happened in the case of Moloney 1985?
D and his father were seeing who was faster at loading and shooting a gun. D was faster and he shot V without aiming the gun. V died.
D convicted of murder. HOL substituted manslaughter
D and his father were seeing who was faster at loading and shooting a gun. D was faster and he shot V without aiming the gun. V died. D convicted of murder. Quashed on appeal
Which case is this?
Moloney 1985
What did the HOL rule in the case of Moloney 1985?
Foresight of consequence is only evidence of intention. Not intention itself. This is still law.
What did Lord Bridge say in the case of Moloney 1985 which has since been overruled by later cases also known as the Moloney guidelines?
1) was death or serious injury a natural consequence
2) Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his acts?
What is a problem with the Moloney 1985 guidelines?
1) what death or serious injury a natural consequence
2) Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his acts?
the word ‘probable’ is not mentioned
What part of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 did Lord Bridge did not include in the Moloney Guidelines 1985?
the word probable, only the word natural
The omission of the word ‘probable’ in Moloney 1985 was held in which case?
Hancock and Shankland 1986
What happened in the case DPP v Smith 1961?
Policeman jumped onto bonnet of car to stop D from driving off with stolen goods. D zigzagged. V knocked onto path and killed by incoming car. D convicted of murder.
What test was used in DPP v Smith 1961?
objective test
What did the court say to justify DPP v Smith 1961 in the conviction of D in murder?
the reasonable man would have contemplated that GBH was likely.
Explain the confusion in the condition of D in DPP v Smith 1961?
D convicted of murder under objective test
D’s conviction quashed by COA under subjective test
D reinstated conviction of murder under objective test
What section of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 explains the proof of criminal intent?
s.8
Policeman jumped onto bonnet of car to stop D from driving off with stolen goods. D zigzagged. V knocked onto path and killed by incoming car. D convicted of murder.
what case is this?
DPP v Smith 1961
What happened in the case Hancock and Shankland 1986?
D tried to prevent V from getting to work by throwing a concrete block from a bridge on the car. The block killed the driver. D’s convicted of murder using Moloney guidelines. COA quashed convictions, HOL upheld as did not consider proportionality
D tried to prevent V from getting to work by throwing a concrete block from a bridge on the car. The block killed the driver. D’s convicted of murder. COA quashed convictions, HOL upheld.
What case is this?
Hancock and Shankland 1986?
What did the trial judge in Hancock and Shankland 1986 use to convict D’s?
Moloney guidelines
Which judge in Hancock and Shankland 1986 explained the problems with the Moloney guidelines?
Lord Scarman
Which judge created the Moloney guidelines 1985?
Lord Bridge
What did Lord Scarman say about the Moloney guidelines 1985?
that they were unsafe and misleading
Which case came after Hancock and Shankland 1986?
Nedrick 1986
What did Nedrick 1986 think?
that the judgements in the cases of Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shanklamd 1986 had to be made clearer
What happened in the case of Nedrick?
D sets fire to a house. A child died in the fire. D was convicted of murder. COA quashed and replaced with manslaughter
D sets on fire a house. A child died in the fire. D was convicted of murder. COA quashed COA and replaced with manslaughter
What is this case?
Nedrick 1986
What 2 questions did the COA say was helpful for a jury to ask themselves to make the law easier for them to understand after Moloney, Hancock and Nedrick?
1) How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
2) Did D forsee that consequence
What did the 2 questions set by the COA remain law until?
until 1998
Which judge explained the 2 questions created by the COA for jury to ask themselves?
Lord Lane CJ
What did the HOL feel about the COA’s views in Nedrick 1986?
that they were not helpful
What happened in the case of Woollin 1998?
D threw baby towards pram against a wall. Baby hit wall and died. Murder.
D threw baby towards pram against a wall. Baby hit wall and died. Murder.
Which case is this?
Woollin 1998
What did the court rule in Woollin 1998?
That the consequence must have been a virtual certainty and D must have realised this
The Law Lords agreed that the model direction of Nedrick should be used but What word did the Law Lords in Woollin 1998 replace, and what did they replace it with?
They said that the word ‘find’ should be used instead of ‘infer’
What was the word ‘infer’ used in which is probably why it was used in Nedrick?
Criminal Justice Act 1967
What is a problem with the improvement of the word ‘find’ by Law Lords in Woollin 1998?
Does the substitution of the word ‘find’ actually improve the clarity of the direction of the jury
What is a problem with the meaning of ‘find’?
does ‘find’ mean that foresight of consequence is intention or just evidence of intention
What did Lord Steyn say in his judgement in Woollin 1998?
that ‘a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result’
What suggests that the HOL in Woollin regarded foresight of consequences as the same as intention when Moloney clearly stated it was not?
if someone foresees the probability of the consequence then ‘this will suffice to establish the necessary intent’
What later case has conflicted with the case of Woollin 1998?
Re A 2000
What was the case of Re A 2000?
civil case, doctors asked courts to separate conjoined twins where they foresaw that this would kill the weaker twin
In the case of Re A 2000 what did the COA say?
that they thought Woollin 1998 laid down the rule that foresight of consequences is intention
What did the criminal case Matthews and Alleyne 2003 find in regards to the case of Woolin 1998?
that the judgement in Woollin 1998 meant that foresight of consequence is not intention; it is a rule of evidence
D’s dropped V into a river. V told them he could not swim. V drowned. D’s convicted of murder.
What is this case?
Matthews and Alleyne 2003
What happened in the case of Matthews and Alleyne 2003?
D’s dropped V into a river. V told them he could not swim. V drowned. D’s convicted of murder.
What was the rule for the jury in Matthews and Alleyne 2003?
If a jury decides that the defendant foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury then they are entitled to find intention but do not have to do so
4 problems with the foresight of consequences
- natural and probable consequence
- difficulty for jurors in applying the tests after the cases of Moloney and Hancock and Shankland
- the change in Woollin from inferring intention to finding intention
- there is still 2 interpretations from the judgement of Woollin 1998
Why is it necessary to include both natural and probable in the test for intention?
this is because something can be a natural consequence without being a probable consequence
What is an example of where something can be a natural consequence but not a probable consequence?
for example, a natural consequence of sexual intercourse is that the girl becomes pregnant. However, it is not a probable consequence. Pregnancy only occurs in a small percentage of cases.
How were the cases of Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shankland 1986 difficult for judges?
as the law was left in a state which made it difficult for judges to explain it to jurors and for jurors to apply the law.
Which case emphasised the difficulties in law caused by Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shankland 1986?
Nedrick 1986
How is it obvious that the case of Nedrick 1986 emphasised the difficulties in law caused by Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shankland 1986?
As the COA in Nedrick 1986 thought it was necessary to try and make the law easier for jurors to understand and apply
What did the HOL say about the two question test from Nedrick 1986 which lasted 12years?
1) how probable was the consequence
2) Did D foresee consequence
that they were not helpful
Which two cases show that there is a conflicting judgement between interpreting Woollin 1998?
Re A - foresight of consequence means intention
Matthews and Alleyne 2003- foresight of consequence is only evidence
