Comment
| Date | 01 November 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838605000406 |
| Published date | 01 November 1986 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
COMMENT
MOLONEY
RECONSIDERED
It is an indictment of the decision of the House of Lords in R. v.
Moloney'
that
the issue of the mental
element
in
murder
has
reappeared
in the appellate courts after less than a year. Though in
Hancock and Shankland.', Lord Scarman (and Lord Lane in the
Court
of
Appeal)
reinforces the most positive feature of Moloney
(that
it is intention that comprises malice aforethought and not
foresight), he also consigns the stress on
"natural"
consequences in
Lord
Bridge's
judgment
to the wastepaper basket.
Hancock was a prosecution which originated in the darkest hours
of
the
NUM
dispute with the
NCB-but
for this context it is quite
possible that the Crown would have accepted the defendants' pleas
of guilty to manslaughter. It was a trial which took place in the
floodlights of media publicity and was inevitably
political-in
the
sense
that
these events contributed to the
debate
on the conduct of
both sides to the dispute. David Wilkie was a taxi-driver, carrying a
"working"
miner to the pit.
The
taxi was in a convoy of a police
Land
Rover
and
police motorcycles going
under
abridge on the
Heads
of the Valleys Road in South Wales when the car was struck
by lumps of concrete toppled from the bridge by the accused. David
Wilkie died.
The
prosecution's case was straightforward: what else could a
person
who pushed concrete blocks
onto
a car have intended but to
cause serious physical harm to the occupants?
The
defendants'
response was that what they intended was to block the road and to
dissuade working miners from working, but not to harm anyone.
Under
Moloney the factual issue for the jury was
simple-did
the
defendants
intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm to the
passenger in the taxi?
It was accepted by everyone that foresight in the
Hyam'
sense
was
insufficient-the
Crown had to prove intention. But
the
1. (1985) I All E.R. 1025; 49
J.CL.
376.
2. (1986) 1All E.R. 641
(CA.
and
H.L.).
3. (1975)
A.C
55; (1974) 2 All E.R. 41.
3H2
To continue reading
Request your trial