OBLIQUE INTENTION
| Case/Statute | Act Leading To Undesired Consequence | Purpose | Undesired Consequence | Decision on How Intention is to be Established |
| DPP
v Smith (1961) |
Driving off with
policeman holding on to car |
To get away from the
policeman |
Policeman fell off
car and killed by oncoming vehicle |
Person intends the
natural & probable consequences of his acts (HL). |
| Section 8 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1967 |
To reverse the
decision in DPP v Smith |
Jury not bound to
find that D intended result just because it was a natural and probable result of D’s act.Look at all relevant evidence and decide D’s intention. |
||
| Hyam
v DPP (1975) |
D put burning
newspaper through letterbox |
To frighten the
woman who lived in the house |
Death of lady’s
two children |
Enough that D
foresaw that his actions were likely or highly likely to cause death or gbh (HL). |
| R
v Moloney (1985) |
Firing live bullet | Shooting contest | Death of stepfather | Jury to ask
themselves: (1) Was death or gbh the natural consequence of D’s act? And (2) Did the D foresee this? If yes to both questions, then can infer intention (HL). |
| R
v Hancock and Shankland (1986) |
D’s threw concrete
block on to motorway |
Intended to block
the road used by non-striking miners |
Death of taxi driver | The greater the
probability of a consequence occurring, the more likely it was foreseen, and the more likely it was foreseen the more likely it was intended. Foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention (HL). |
| Case/Statute | Guilty Act | Purpose | Undesired Consequence | Decision |
| R
v Nedrick (1986) |
D put petrol bomb
through letterbox |
D wanted to frighten
the owner of the house |
Child burned to
death |
If jury satisfied
that D recognised that death or sbh would be a virtually certain result of his act, then they may infer that D intended to cause that result, but not obliged to do so (CA). |
| R
v Scalley (1995) |
D set fire to a
house |
To destroy flat | Death of child | Judge failed to
explain that if jury satisfied that D did see death or serious injury as virtually certain, then could infer intention but did not have to (CA). |
| R
v Woollin (1998) |
Lost temper and
threw baby onto hard surface |
Frustration at baby
crying |
Death of baby | Jury should be
directed according to the Nedrick “virtual certainty” test to find intention. Substantial risk is not enough (HL). |
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: