Mens Rea Intention Table | Law Essays

v Smith (1961)

policeman holding on to car

policeman

car and killed by oncoming vehicle

natural & probable

consequences of his

acts (HL).

Criminal Justice Act 1967

decision in DPP v Smith

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.

v DPP (1975)

newspaper through letterbox

woman who lived in the house

two children

foresaw that his actions were likely or highly likely to cause death or

gbh (HL).

v Moloney (1985)

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).

v Hancock and Shankland (1986)

block on to motorway

the road used by non-striking miners

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).

v Nedrick (1986)

through letterbox

the owner of the house

death

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).

v Scalley (1995)

house

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).

v Woollin (1998)

threw baby onto hard surface

crying

directed according to the Nedrick “virtual certainty” test to find intention.

Substantial risk is not enough (HL).