R v Moloney [1985] AC 905

Court: House of Lords

Facts: D, after a night of heavy drinking at a family celebration, engaged in a drunken game of "quick draw" with his stepfather. D shot his stepfather, killing him. D claimed that he had not intended to kill and that the shooting had been a tragic accident. The issue before the court was whether D's foresight of the consequences of his actions equated to an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Held: The House of Lords quashed D’s murder conviction but substituted manslaughter. They held that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention, but it is evidence from which the jury might infer intention. Lord Bridge outlined two questions for juries to consider in such cases: (1) Was death or serious injury a natural consequence of D’s act? (2) Did D foresee that consequence as a natural consequence?

💡Levelup This case is a critical development in the law of indirect intention, distinguishing between foresight of consequences and actual intention.