Cunnin [Murder - intention – intention to commit homicide or grievous bodily ha

gham, D attacked V in a pub, hitting him repeatedly with a chair, which resulted in V’s death.
Rv
Held: Intention to cause grievous bodily harm, but not to cause death, is sufficient to establish th
(1981) murder.
HL Lord Hailsham LC:
‘malice aforethought has never been limited to the intention to kill or to endanger life’.
Lord Edmund-Davies (dissenting):
"I find it passing strange that a person can be convicted of murder if death results from, say, his i
of another’s arm, an action which, while undoubtedly involving the infliction of ‘really serious harm
calling for severe punishment, would in most cases be unlikely to kill. And yet, for the lesser offen
murder, nothing less than an intent to kill will suffice. But I recognise the force of the contrary vie
outcome of intentionally inflicting serious harm can be so unpredictable that anyone prepared to a
little ground for complaint if, where death results, he is convicted and punished as severely as one
kill."
Guilty

Molone [Murder - intention – includes knowledge or foresight]

y, R D and V (D’s stepfather of whom D was very fond) had a contest as to loa
v (198 firing a shotgun. D a serving soldier shot V without aiming. V taunted D t
5) HL Incident occurred during a late night of drinking.

Held:
Lord Bridge:
‘foresight of consequences, as an element bearing on the issue of intentio
or indeed any other crime of specific intent, belongs, not to the substanti
the law of evidence ... In the rare cases in which it is necessary for the ju
a jury by reference to foresight of consequences, I do not believe it is nec
judge to do more than invite the jury to consider two questions. First, wa
really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence
proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence o
defendant’s voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that cons
being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that
answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw tha
that consequence.’
D was not guilty of murder
Nedric [Murder - intention – includes knowledge or foresight]
k, R v D poured paraffin through the letterbox of a house and set it alight, resul
(1986) death of a child.
CA
Held: Per Lord Lane CJ:
‘Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direc
intent] is not enough, the jury should be directed that they were not enti
the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily
virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the
actions and that the defendant realised that such was the case. Where a
that it is for all practical purposes inevitable that his actions will result in
serious harm, the inference may be irresistible that he intended that resu
little he may have desired orwished it to happen. The decision is one for t
reached on consideration of all the evidence.’
D was guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

White, [Murder - intention – intention to kill]

Rv D put cyanide into his mother’s lemonade drink, but she died of heart fail
[1910] poison could kill her. The answer to the question ‘But for what the defend
CA she have died?’ is ‘No’. She would have died anyway.

Held: He was acquitted of murder on the grounds that he had not actually
mother’s death.

Guilty of attempted murder.

Woollin [Murder – intention – Nedrick correct test in most circumstances]

,Rv D lost his temper with his three-month-old son and threw the child onto a
[1998] causing head injuries from which the child died.
HL
Held: The jury, should be directed that they are entitled to find the neces
if they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty
some unforeseen intervention - as a result of the defendant’s actions, and
defendant realised such was the case, but should be reminded that the de
for them on a consideration of all the evidence. Murder is a crime of spec
for any reason (including self-induced intoxication) the killer does not for
necessary intent, he cannot be convicted of murder

Not guilty of murder, guilty manslaughter.