Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Intention/Recklessness - Coggle Diagram
Intention/Recklessness
Intention
Direct
R Mohan 1976: "a decision to bring about, so far as lies within the defendants power [...] the prohibited consequence"
Indirect
R v Moloney 1985: Defendant shot his step-father during drunken competition to see who could load and fire a gun the fastest. Held that foresight of conseqeunces is evidence of intention.
R v Hancock & Shankland 1986: Ds were striking miners who dropped stones from a bridge to create a road block. One stone killed a taxi driver. Held that the greater the probability of the consequence, the more likely there was intention.
S8 CJA 1967: Intention can be inferred by the jury where the consequence was 'natural and probable'.
R v Nedrick 1986: D had a grievance with a woman and poured paraffin through her letter box, setting it alight and killing a child. It was held that the jury may use FOC to "INFER" intention.
R v Woollin 1998: D got frustrated when his baby would not stop crying and threw it onto a hard surface, causing a fractured skull and death. HoL held that jury must use FOC to "FIND" intention.
Re A 2000: Doctors asked courts if they could separate conjoined twins if they foresaw that this would kill the weaker twin. Court used Woollin to state that foresight of consequences is intention
R v Matthews & Alleyne 2003: Ds dropped a victim from a bridge into a river after they had told the Ds they could not swim. Trial judge stated used Woollin to say foresight of consequences is intention, but CoA overturned this statement and said that foreseight of consequences is EVIDENCE no intention itself.
Evaluation of Intention
Advantages
Natural/Probable Consequence: good wording, it is possible to have a natural consequence without it being probable (e.g. getting pregnant)
Disadvantages
2 Interpretations of CJA 1967: Nedrick: FOC used to "INFER" intention/Woollin: FOC used to "FIND" intention.
2 Interpretations of Woollin: Re A 2000: FOC is intention/Matthews & Alleyne 2003: FOC is only evidence of intention
Difficulties for jurors: judges themselves seem confused about the law on intention, so are unable to explain it to jurors in a precise and coherent way.
Transferred Malice
R v Mitchell 1981: "when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person harm, the first person is liable"
R v Latimer 1886: The D had an arguement in a pub, and attempted to strike his intended victim with a belt. The belt narrowly missed and struck a innocent passer by. D was guilty of an assault
R v Gnango 2011: D (Gnango) and his friend (Bandana Man) voluntarily decided to take part in a shoot out. During the shoot out, Bandana Man shot an innocent passer by. Gnango was jointly found guilty of the murder as by volunteering to take part in the shoot out, he was volunteering to participate in his own attempted murder, and therefore his intention to murder himself was transferred to the innocent passer by.
R v Pembliton 1874: D had a fight with a group of people. He attempted to throw a stone at them but missed and hit a window, causing it to shatter. Held that it was impossible for malice to be transferred to objects.
Recklessness
Development of the Law
There used to be 2 types of recklessness, objective and subjective
MPC v Caldwell 1981: D had a grievance with the owner of a hotel. One day he got drunk and decided to set the hotel on fire, causing large amounts of criminal damage. He claimed he did not realise the risk of what he was doing, but it was held that the objective standard of a reasonable person would have realised the risk.
Elliot v C 1983: the D was a 14 year old with learning difficulties. She set fire to a shed and was convected on the standard of a reasonable person despite the fact she had not realised the risk. This exposed the inherent unfairness of the law.
R v G & R 2003: 2 Ds of 12 and 13 years of age set fire to some paper and threw it under a wheelie bin, presuming it would burn out. It did not and caused over £1 million in damage to the local shop. HoL held they were not guilty as they had not realised the risk. New definition of recklessness is SUBJECTIVE
Subjective Recklessness
R v Cunningham 1957: D broke into an empty house and ripped the gas metre of the wall, inadvertently causing gas to leak into the neighbouring house. He was charged with 'administering a noxious thing' under s23 of OAPA 1861. He was found not guilty as the word "maliciously" required him to have realised the risk.
R v Savage 1991: D intended to throw beer her beer over the victim.The glass slipped out of her hand, and cut the woman she was arguing with. The word "maliciously" was used again by the CoA to establish that she was not guilty under s20 OAPA 1861
-
-