R v Moloney
Foresight of consequences is not the same as intention, but is evidence from which intention may be inferred.
Facts
Mr Moloney, a soldier, and his stepfather had been drinking heavily at a family party. They had a contest to see who was faster at loading and firing a shotgun. Mr Moloney loaded faster, and his stepfather dared him to fire. He pulled the trigger and killed his stepfather, saying that he had not aimed the gun at him and had not intended to kill him. The judge directed the jury that a person intends a consequence if he desires it or foresees that it will probably happen.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed his murder conviction and substituted manslaughter. Lord Bridge said that foresight of consequences, as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder, belongs not to the substantive law but to the law of evidence. The jury should ask whether death or really serious injury was a natural consequence of the defendant's act, and whether the defendant foresaw that consequence as a natural consequence. If so, they may infer that he intended it. The guidance was criticised because it did not mention probability, and was clarified in later cases.
Related cases on mens rea
- Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245
- R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341
- R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59
- R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
- R v G [2003] UKHL 50, [2004] 1 AC 1034
- R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455
- R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
- R v Le Brun [1992] QB 61
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
