Intention Case Law

Case names with their significance in law on the reverse.

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Emily
  • Created on: 05-06-14 19:23
Mohan (1975)
The court defined intention as "a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies with the accused's power, [the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not."
1 of 7
Moloney (1985)
In this case the HoL ruled that foresight of consequences is only EVIDENCE of intention. The jury was asked to consider whether death/serious injury was a natural consequence of D's action and whether D foresaw that as being a natural consequence.
2 of 7
Hancock and Shankland (1986)
Scarman stated that Moloney guidelines were missing probability. Held that the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen, and if it was foreseen the greater the probability that it was intended.
3 of 7
Nedrick (1986)
Held that the jury not entitled to INFER the necessary intention unless sure that death/serious injury was a virtual certainty and that D appreciated this.
4 of 7
Woollin (1986)
Held that the direction in Nedrick should not use the word "infer". Instead the jury should be told they are entitled to FIND intention.
5 of 7
Re A (2000)
Court thought that Woollin made it law that foresight of consequences IS intention.
6 of 7
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Held that Woollin meant that foresight of consequences in NOT intention, it is only EVIDENCE of intention. If a jury decides that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death/serious injury then they are entitled to find intention, but do not have to.
7 of 7

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

In this case the HoL ruled that foresight of consequences is only EVIDENCE of intention. The jury was asked to consider whether death/serious injury was a natural consequence of D's action and whether D foresaw that as being a natural consequence.

Back

Moloney (1985)

Card 3

Front

Scarman stated that Moloney guidelines were missing probability. Held that the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen, and if it was foreseen the greater the probability that it was intended.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Held that the jury not entitled to INFER the necessary intention unless sure that death/serious injury was a virtual certainty and that D appreciated this.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Held that the direction in Nedrick should not use the word "infer". Instead the jury should be told they are entitled to FIND intention.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »