It should be explained to the jury that the greater the probability of a consequence occurring, the more likely that it was foreseen, and the more likely that it was foreseen, the more likely it is that it was intended. The jury should therefore consider whether the defendant foresaw a consequence. Lord Scarman expressed the view that intention was not to be equated with foresight of consequences, but that intention could be established if there was evidence of foresight. Lord Scarman felt that the Moloney guidelines on the relationship between foresight and intention were unsatisfactory as they were likely to mislead a jury. On appeal a verdict of manslaughter was substituted by the House of Lords who reaffirmed that the prosecution has to establish an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm on the part of the defendant.
LORDS OF THE FALLEN 2 MURDERERS TRIAL
The trial judge directed the jury on the basis of Lord Bridge’s statements in Moloney (ie, was death or grievous bodily harm a natural consequence of what was done, and did the defendants foresee that consequence as a natural consequence?) and the defendants were convicted of murder. The defendants argued that they only intended to block the road but not to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It struck a taxi that was carrying a working miner and killed the driver. The defendants were striking miners who threw a concrete block from a bridge onto the motorway below. Although Lord Hailsham LC stated that he did not think that foresight of a high degree of probability is at all the same thing as intention, and it is not foresight but intention which constitiutes the mental element in murder, the House of Lords (by a 3-2 majority), held that foresight on the part of the defendant that his actions were likely, or highly likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm was sufficient mens rea for murder. Ackner J directed the jury that the defendant was guilty if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause at least serious bodily harm. She claimed that she had not meant to kill but had foreseen death or grievous bodily harm as a highly probable result of her actions. The defendant, in order to frighten Mrs Booth, her rival for the affections of Mr X, put burning newspaper through the letterbox of Booth’s house and caused the death of two of her children.
Woollin remains the leading precedent used when the courts and juries are considering oblique intention Norrie states that that ‘Woollin constitutes the last word on the indirect intention for murder’ You can find out more about Mes Rea in the law lectures section of the site: Mens Rea Lecture Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp
0 kommentar(er)
