Intentions (Specific Intent)

Question 1

What case defined intention?

Answer 1

Mohan 1975

Question 2

What does the case of Mohan 1975 define intention as?

Answer 2

to bring about a prohibited consequence no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not

Question 3

What does the definition of intention under Mohan 1975 make clear?

Answer 3

that the defendants motive or reason for doing the act is not relevant

Question 4

What section and Act illustrates that it does not matter if the defendant had motive for doing the act?

Answer 4

s.18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1961

Question 5

What does s.18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1961 illustrate ?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Other than the definition of intention what else does Mohan 1975 make clear?

Answer 6

that motive is not the same as intention and is not relevant in deciding whether the defendant had intention.

Question 7

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?

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

In the majority of cases what time of intent to defendants have?

Answer 8

they have direct intent

Question 9

What does direct intent mean?

Answer 9

this means that he intends the specific consequence to occur

Question 10

What is a quick example of explaining direct intent?

Answer 10

D aims gun at V, pulls the trigger, V dies. D has direct intent to kill V

Question 11

What does oblique intent mean?

Answer 11

this is when the defendant intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another thing

Question 12

Quick example of oblique intent

Answer 12

D intends to frighten someone to stop them from going to work. Consequence the driver of the car was killed.
-Hancock and Shankland 1986

Question 13

What is the main problem with proving intention?

Answer 13

in cases where the defendants main aim was not the prohibited consequence

Question 14

When may D be guilty of even if their main aim was not the prohibited consequence?

Answer 14

if D foresaw that he would also cause those consequences

Question 15

What is it known as when D can be guilty if they foresee the consequences of their actions?

Answer 15

‘foresight of consequences’

Question 16

What is an example of ‘foresight of intentions”?

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

what section is the offence under for GBH?

Answer 17

s.18

Question 18

What is the starting point for foresight of consequences ?

Answer 18

Criminal Justice Act 1967

Question 19

What did s.8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 do?

Answer 19

this statute reversed the position of the objective test on oblique intent to subjective

Question 20

What terms does the Criminal Justice Act 1967 use for jury’s to determine whether a person has committed an offence?

Answer 20

If the actions of D has a ‘natural and probable consequence’ to the offence

Question 21

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 what is the important point made?

Answer 21

that D must intent or foresee a result

Question 22

For example, for in a murder case what must D do which will make him guilty of murder?

Answer 22

must intend or foresee death or serious injury

Question 23

What is the leading case on the foresight of consequences?

Answer 23

Woollin 1998

Question 24

What was the first case under the foresight of consequences?

Answer 24

DPP v Smith 1961

Question 25

What happened in the case of Moloney 1985?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

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?

Answer 26

Moloney 1985

Question 27

What did the HOL rule in the case of Moloney 1985?

Answer 27

Foresight of consequence is only evidence of intention. Not intention itself. This is still law.

Question 28

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?

Answer 28

1) was death or serious injury a natural consequence | 2) Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his acts?

Question 29

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?

Answer 29

the word 'probable' is not mentioned

Question 30

What part of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 did Lord Bridge did not include in the Moloney Guidelines 1985?

Answer 30

the word probable, only the word natural

Question 31

The omission of the word 'probable' in Moloney 1985 was held in which case?

Answer 31

Hancock and Shankland 1986

Question 32

What happened in the case DPP v Smith 1961?

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

What test was used in DPP v Smith 1961?

Answer 33

objective test

Question 34

What did the court say to justify DPP v Smith 1961 in the conviction of D in murder?

Answer 34

the reasonable man would have contemplated that GBH was likely.

Question 35

Explain the confusion in the condition of D in DPP v Smith 1961?

Answer 35

D convicted of murder under objective test D's conviction quashed by COA under subjective test D reinstated conviction of murder under objective test

Question 36

What section of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 explains the proof of criminal intent?

Answer 36

s.8

Question 37

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?

Answer 37

DPP v Smith 1961

Question 38

What happened in the case Hancock and Shankland 1986?

Answer 38

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

Question 39

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?

Answer 39

Hancock and Shankland 1986?

Question 40

What did the trial judge in Hancock and Shankland 1986 use to convict D's?

Answer 40

Moloney guidelines

Question 41

Which judge in Hancock and Shankland 1986 explained the problems with the Moloney guidelines?

Answer 41

Lord Scarman

Question 42

Which judge created the Moloney guidelines 1985?

Answer 42

Lord Bridge

Question 43

What did Lord Scarman say about the Moloney guidelines 1985?

Answer 43

that they were unsafe and misleading

Question 44

Which case came after Hancock and Shankland 1986?

Answer 44

Nedrick 1986

Question 45

What did Nedrick 1986 think?

Answer 45

that the judgements in the cases of Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shanklamd 1986 had to be made clearer

Question 46

What happened in the case of Nedrick?

Answer 46

D sets fire to a house. A child died in the fire. D was convicted of murder. COA quashed and replaced with manslaughter

Question 47

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?

Answer 47

Nedrick 1986

Question 48

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?

Answer 48

1) How probable was the consequence which resulted from D's voluntary act? 2) Did D forsee that consequence

Question 49

What did the 2 questions set by the COA remain law until?

Answer 49

until 1998

Question 50

Which judge explained the 2 questions created by the COA for jury to ask themselves?

Answer 50

Lord Lane CJ

Question 51

What did the HOL feel about the COA's views in Nedrick 1986?

Answer 51

that they were not helpful

Question 52

What happened in the case of Woollin 1998?

Answer 52

D threw baby towards pram against a wall. Baby hit wall and died. Murder.

Question 53

D threw baby towards pram against a wall. Baby hit wall and died. Murder. Which case is this?

Answer 53

Woollin 1998

Question 54

What did the court rule in Woollin 1998?

Answer 54

That the consequence must have been a virtual certainty and D must have realised this

Question 55

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?

Answer 55

They said that the word 'find' should be used instead of 'infer'

Question 56

What was the word 'infer' used in which is probably why it was used in Nedrick?

Answer 56

Criminal Justice Act 1967

Question 57

What is a problem with the improvement of the word 'find' by Law Lords in Woollin 1998?

Answer 57

Does the substitution of the word 'find' actually improve the clarity of the direction of the jury

Question 58

What is a problem with the meaning of 'find'?

Answer 58

does 'find' mean that foresight of consequence is intention or just evidence of intention

Question 59

What did Lord Steyn say in his judgement in Woollin 1998?

Answer 59

that 'a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result'

Question 60

What suggests that the HOL in Woollin regarded foresight of consequences as the same as intention when Moloney clearly stated it was not?

Answer 60

if someone foresees the probability of the consequence then 'this will suffice to establish the necessary intent'

Question 61

What later case has conflicted with the case of Woollin 1998?

Answer 61

Re A 2000

Question 62

What was the case of Re A 2000?

Answer 62

civil case, doctors asked courts to separate conjoined twins where they foresaw that this would kill the weaker twin

Question 63

In the case of Re A 2000 what did the COA say?

Answer 63

that they thought Woollin 1998 laid down the rule that foresight of consequences is intention

Question 64

What did the criminal case Matthews and Alleyne 2003 find in regards to the case of Woolin 1998?

Answer 64

that the judgement in Woollin 1998 meant that foresight of consequence is not intention; it is a rule of evidence

Question 65

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?

Answer 65

Matthews and Alleyne 2003

Question 66

What happened in the case of Matthews and Alleyne 2003?

Answer 66

D's dropped V into a river. V told them he could not swim. V drowned. D's convicted of murder.

Question 67

What was the rule for the jury in Matthews and Alleyne 2003?

Answer 67

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

Question 68

4 problems with the foresight of consequences

Answer 68

- 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

Question 69

Why is it necessary to include both natural and probable in the test for intention?

Answer 69

this is because something can be a natural consequence without being a probable consequence

Question 70

What is an example of where something can be a natural consequence but not a probable consequence?

Answer 70

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.

Question 71

How were the cases of Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shankland 1986 difficult for judges?

Answer 71

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.

Question 72

Which case emphasised the difficulties in law caused by Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shankland 1986?

Answer 72

Nedrick 1986

Question 73

How is it obvious that the case of Nedrick 1986 emphasised the difficulties in law caused by Moloney 1985 and Hancock and Shankland 1986?

Answer 73

As the COA in Nedrick 1986 thought it was necessary to try and make the law easier for jurors to understand and apply

Question 74

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

Answer 74

that they were not helpful

Question 75

Which two cases show that there is a conflicting judgement between interpreting Woollin 1998?

Answer 75

Re A - foresight of consequence means intention | Matthews and Alleyne 2003- foresight of consequence is only evidence