Homicide - Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

R v Moloney (1985) - The defendant shot his stepfather killing him. Evidence was produced that the pair had a good relationship. They had been celebrating the defendant's grandparents' ruby wedding anniversary and had consumed a quantity of alcohol. The rest of the family had gone to bed and the two stayed up drinking. The defendant told his stepfather that he wanted to leave the army. The stepfather was not happy at the news and berated the defendant. He told him he could load, draw and shoot a gun quicker than him and told him to get the guns. The defendant returned with two guns and took the challenge. The defendant was first to load and draw and the stepfather said that he didn't believe that the defendant had the guts to pull the trigger. The defendant pulled the trigger but in his drunken state, he did not believe that the gun was aimed at the stepfather. The trial judge directed on oblique intent and the jury convicted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the defendant appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords held that the defendant's conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter. It was not a case of oblique intent and the judge should not have issued a direction relating to the further expansion of intention. Lord Bridge provided;

"The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury's good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent, unless the judge is convinced that, on the facts and having regard to the way the case has been presented to the jury in evidence and argument, some further explanation or elaboration is strictly necessary to avoid misunderstanding."

"In the rare cases which it is necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of consequences, I do not believe it is necessary for the judge to do more than invite the jury to consider two questions. First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended to draw that he intended that consequence."

Cunningham (Anthony Barry) (1982) - the defendant, in a rage and a wholly unprovoked attack, killed the victim. The prosecution conceded that the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, but the jury found he intended to cause the victim really serious harm. The House of Lords approved its previous decision in R v Hyam (1975) that implied malice is sufficient mens rea…