This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Moloney [1985] AC 905

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:03

Judgement for the case R v Moloney

KEY POINTS

  • The court recognized that there is often a fine line between intention and foresight of consequences. To determine intention, the jury must assess the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act and ascertain whether the prohibited consequence was the defendant's purpose or aim.

  • If the defendant foresaw the prohibited consequence as a natural and probable result of their actions and, at the same time, appreciated the consequence as being virtually certain to occur, then the jury could infer intention. However, the mere foreseeability of the consequence is not sufficient to prove intention; there must be an added element of desire or purpose to bring about that consequence.

FACTS

  • The defendant, Moloney, and his stepfather, Hancock, were engaging in a drunken discussion regarding their marksmanship. They had a loaded shotgun, and Moloney challenged Hancock to a quick draw contest, pointing the gun at Hancock.

  • Tragically, Moloney accidentally shot Hancock, causing his death. As his defence, Moloney countered that he did not aim the gun, but merely pulled the trigger.

COMMENTARY

  • By differentiating between foresight and intention, the judgement sought to strike a balance between holding individuals accountable for their actions and ensuring that they are not unduly punished for unintended consequences.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • A man and his stepfather were drinking and played a shooting game. M killed his step father but claimed that he did not aim the gun but merely pulled the trigger and his step father was dead.

  • The judge in his summing up stated that the defense was a denial of intent, ignoring the defendant’s claim that he did not realize where the gun was pointed. The judge described intent as when one forsees what will happen or desires what will happen (only one of these need be fulfilled).

  • The defendant was convicted of murder. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

  • The HL allowed his appeal on the grounds that his true defence was never stated (that he did not realize where the gun was pointing and therefore neither desired nor foresaw what would occur).

  • A conviction of manslaughter was substituted for the conviction of murder.

    • The trial judge ought not to have directed the jury on intent since it was supposedly his explanation of foresight that led to their conviction.

    • Also the question of foresight is that the consequences have to be “little short of certainty” to establish the necessary intent.

  • HL decided that judges should avoid explaining intention beyond that it differs from “desire” and “motive” (Ashworth p.178) 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Moloney

GDL Criminal Law Notes
551 total pages
76 purchased

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...

Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

GDL Criminal LawMens Rea Notes (9 pages)
Criminal LawMens Rea — Intention Recklessness And Negligence Notes (24 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...