Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R V Woollin
R V Woollin
APPELLANT: Woollin
CASE HISTORY
Appellant convicted of murder
TOPIC (S): Homicide, murder, mental element
Normally Ds actions are enough to illustrate the intent, but it becomes difficult
when they dont. The issue of intention is dealt with as it previously lacked
clarity.
MATERIAL FACTS:
Appellant lost temper, threw 3-month-old baby on to hard surface
Baby (Karl) sustained fractured skull and died
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1- By directing the jury in terms of substantial risk the judge unacceptably
enlarged the mental element of murder.
FOR
+L. Steyn: the Crown accepted that the
appellant did not want to cause the
child serious injuries.
The jury must consider 2 questions.
(a) How probable was the consequence
of serious injury which resulted from
his throw?
(b) Did he foresee the consequence in
the second before or at the time of
throwing? He could not have intended
serious harm if he did not foresee the
consequence and did not appreciate it
at the time that serious harm might
result from his throw if he thought, or
may have thought, that in throwing the
child he was exposing him to only the
AGAINST
-if the jury are satisfied that he was
aware of what he was doing and
must have realised and appreciated
that when he threw the child that
there was a substantial risk that he
would cause serious bodily harm to
him, then it would be open to you
to find that he intended to cause
injury to the child and you should
convict him of murder.
LEADING CASE(S)/STATUTE(S)
R v Smith [1960] -> the sole question is whether the unlawful and voluntary act
was of such a kind that GBH was the natural and probable result. The only test
for this is what the ordinary, responsible, man would, in all the circumstances of
the case, have contemplated as the natural and probable result.
context and degree. If D had not nominated his V then that is different from
setting the bomb in the plane in order to destroy it AND setting it off in the
airport in order for a bomb disposal expert to be killed in the process of
diffusing it. Brings it back into the fold of VC.
- the judges are possibly holding reservations about Woollins clarification of law
on oblique intent because indiscriminate malice is a term which has a broad
moral flavour and is associated with the Scots law murder MR term wicked
recklessness.
-L.Bridge wanted to distinguish recklessness from indirect intention and
suggested intend and foresee connote two different states of mind. Norrie
says that for him to be consistent with his analysis of indirect intention, he
should have said theres a relevant distinction between the mental states of
foresight of moral certainty and foresight of a consequence within the range
of probability.
-There are cases where only purpose/direct intention will do Norrie says these
are cases where there is a moral threshold such that even D could foresee a
result as VC, it is at odds with his moral conception of what he was doing that it
could not be conceived as a result to what he intended.
#Steane -> Stean was broadcasting to assist the enemy but only doing so
in order to save his family.
There is a moral gap between what Steans AR and MR -> his act and his
purpose. The judges declined to find anything other than that he had an
intention to save his family; yet this is a case where it is VC that the offence of
assisting the enemy is VC. Indirect intention here could have been established
but was not found.
>The Laws language of Fault: normative or descriptive?
- Case central point: the restriction of indirect intent to cases of foresight of VC
and exclusion of probability or risk
- Theres a connection between the moral threshold (in cases like Steane) and
the problem of indiscriminate malice The problem lies in the nature of the
legal language of fault that is required to do essential moral work in the criminal
law.
- George Fletcher its propositions are descriptive and normative and that
one if the persistent tensions in legal terminology runs between the descriptive
and normative uses of the same terms
LINKS
R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) their appeals were dismissed and they were
convicted on the basis that law had not yet reached a definition of intent in
murder in terms of a virtual certainty. Whether they must or may find
intention. They may. Significant because it could conflict morally. Gives jury
flexibly moral elbow room (Ashworth) in cases where VC not sufficient.
Whether it is appropriate or not is debateable. Allows judges to import their
moral views, CL system will reflect morality of the public in step with public
morality. Disadvantage is that it would cause inconsistency, wont be able to
anticipate outcome, and would be subjective. Could become obsolete.