House of Lords
| Published date | 01 August 1986 |
| Date | 01 August 1986 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201838605000305 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT-THE
RELEVANCE OF
"PROBABILITY"
R. v. Hancockand Shankland
In R. v. Moloney (1985) 2 W.L.R. 649; 49 J.Cr.L. 344, the Law
Lords set out model guidelines to assist trial judges concerning the
nature of the direction to be given to the jury in a murder trial in
which the judge considered it necessary to direct the jury on the
matter of intention by reference to foresight of consequences. Soon
afterwards, however, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Hancock &
Shankland (1985) 3 W.L.R. 1014;50
J.c.L.
125, felt it necessary to
amplify those guidelines in order to resolve apparent ambiguity
therein. Now, in R. v. Hancock &Shankland (1986) 2 W.L.R.
357, the House of Lords has ruled not only that the
"Moloney-
guidelines" are defective, unsafe and misleading and should not be
used as they stand without further explanation, but also that the
Court of Appeal's alternative version of the
"Moloney-
guidelines" should not be used bytrial judges when summing up to a
jury.
In 1984, during the miners' strike, the defendants, who were
miners on strike, pushed a block of concrete and a concrete post
from a bridge above a highway at a time when a convoy of motor
vehicles taking a miner to work was travelling along the highway
beneath the bridge. The miner was being conveyed to work in a taxi.
The
windscreen of the taxi was struck by the falling concrete block
and the taxi driver was killed. The defendants were charged, inter
alia, with murder. They contended that they had no intention to kill
or to inflict harm on anyone, their intention being merely to block
the road or to frighten the members of the convoy, but they were
convicted after the trial judge, basing his direction on the guidelines
concerning intent set out by Lord Bridge in Moloney (above), had
told the jury that they might, for the purpose of considering what
inferences to draw from the evidence on the question of intent, find
it helpful to ask themselves: "Was death or serious injury a natural
consequence of what was done? Did a defendant forsee that
251
To continue reading
Request your trial