4. 1.

Hyam v DPP
Hancock v Shankland -D poured petrol in her rival's letterbox to
- H and S objected to W make her leave
going to work as they were -D claimed she thought the house was
on a strike empty, but there were children there who died -D was convicted as the person has the mens rea for
murder when he does the act that kills, he knows that it is highly probable it will cause death/GBH -Confirmed the
definition of intention:
-threw a block of concrete from a bridge, killed W -Claimed they only intended to block road. - held liable as
greater probability > consequence
1. D did an act where he desired to
was foreseen > it was
produce the particular result
intended 2. aware that it was likely produce that
-jury will decide based on all result
evidence
2. Steane - D made broadcasts for enemy in WW2 under duress -convicted of intending to
assist enemy -conviction quashed as the jury should be allowed to determine the true intent
in each case
3. R v Moloney - D and his stepfather drank heavily -S told D he did not guts to pull trigger - D pulled trigger,
killed S -D was convicted of murder -overruled Hyam v Dpp -the judge should avoid any elaboration on what is
meant by intent and leave it to the jury's good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary
intent -foresight of virtual certainty is not equal to intention, it is rather a state of mind that may be used to infer
intention
6. R v Woollin -W threw his 3 month old son on a hard object, killing him - Convicted, as he realized there was
a risk of serious injury -foresight is not intention, it is only evidence from which jury can infer intention -foresight
of anything less than virtual certainity cannot be intention rather recklessness
5. R v Nedrick -N threatened to burn out woman he had a grudge against -put paraffin in her letterbox, her
child died -Convicted of murder -jury are not entitled to infer intention until they feel that death/GBH was a
virtual certainity and D appreciated this -from this^ it will be easier to infer that D intended to kill/ do serious
harm

Mens Rea
7. Stringer - M started fire in his house, walked away, killing his family -was convicted as it was virtually certain
that somebody in the house would suffer serious harm - it is 'obvious' to any ordinary person.
1. Virtually certain? 2. Did D see it as being Virtually certain?
8. Cunningham - D ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal from it -gas escaped pipes harming
occupants -recklessness meant accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done yet has
gone to take the risk
Intention > virtually certain Recklessness > high degree of probability
9. Parker - D frustrated with a public telephone, smashed it, therefore damaged it. - A person was reckless not only when he
was conscious of the risk but also if he closed his mind off to the obvious fact that there is some risk of damage resulting
from the act 10. R v Stephenson - Defendant tried to go to sleep in a haystack, to keep himself warm started fire, damaged
a lot...he had a history of schizophrenia - D's medical condition would render him less able than ordinary people to foresee
the consequences of his actions
11.Brady -D was drunk, climbed on railings at a nightclub, fell on dance floor -caused injuries to V -No defence
for a person with self induced intoxication
12. Caldwell - D had a grievance against hotel owner -got very drunk, fought, set fire to the hotel -No longer
was it necessary to prove that D foresaw the risk of harm, it was enough that they should have foreseen it 13.
Lawrence -jury may apply the 'standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves'
14. Elliot v C - a 14 year old girl with learning difficulties lit shed on fire - D was guilty as it did not matter whether she
foresaw the risk rather if a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk ^ this was seen as unjust as due to her learning
difficulties she was incapable of appreciating the risk
15. R v G and other -G + R went camping without their parents permission -set fire, it spread, loss of 1m -neither
appreciated the risk -one has to be aware of the risk to be blamed for it -an obvious risk to adults would not
necessarily be obvious to children -objective > subjective