Home / Summaries / Law / intention-intent-officer

Criminal Law - Murder

Q: What was the defendant Woollin doing at home?

Woollin was at home caring for his 3-month-old baby . The baby was crying , and Woollin became frustrated . In anger, he threw the baby towards a pram, which was about 5 feet away . The baby missed the pram, hit the floor, and died from head injuries.

Q: What happened to the baby after Woollin threw him?

The baby missed the pram , hit the floor, and died from head injuries . Woollin was charged with murder .

34 important questions on Criminal Law - Murder

What actions did Mohan take when signaled by a police officer to stop?

Mohan was driving a car and was signaled by a police officer to stop. Instead of stopping, Mohan accelerated and drove straight at the officer, causing the officer to jump out of the way to avoid being hit.

What charge was Mohan facing?

Mohan was charged with attempting to cause bodily harm to a police officer.

What did the court hold regarding intention in Mohan (1975)?

The court held that intention means a decision to bring about a certain consequence, regardless of whether the defendant desired that consequence. Intention must be specific; mere recklessness is not enough for crimes of specific intent.

What was the defendant Woollin doing at home?

Woollin was at home caring for his 3-month-old baby. The baby was crying, and Woollin became frustrated. In anger, he threw the baby towards a pram, which was about 5 feet away. The baby missed the pram, hit the floor, and died from head injuries.

What was the key issue in Mohan (1975)?

The key issue was whether Mohan meant to injure the officer (or at least cause harm). The court found that intention must be specific for crimes of specific intent.

What legal issues are highlighted in the case of Mohan (1975)?

The legal issues highlighted are:

What is the meaning of “intention” in criminal law?
Did Mohan have the specific intent required for the offence?

When can homicide be lawful?

Killing someone by using reasonable force in self-defense.
Killing in war.
Interest of justice, lawful arrest.
Lawful death sentence.

What legal issue was addressed in Woollin 1998 regarding intent for murder?

The legal issue addressed was whether Woollin had the necessary intent (mens rea) for murder, even though he did not want to kill the baby. It also questioned how indirect (or oblique) intent should be assessed.

What happened to the baby after Woollin threw him?

The baby missed the pram, hit the floor, and died from head injuries. Woollin was charged with murder.

What is the significance of Mohan (1975) regarding direct intent?

Mohan is a leading case on the definition of direct intent. It confirmed that intention is a decision to bring about a particular consequence, even if it’s not the defendant’s ultimate goal.

What is murder according to Lord Coke?

The unlawful killing of another human being under the Queen's peace with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

What did the House of Lords rule in Woollin 1998 regarding intent?

The House of Lords ruled that a jury may find intent where death or serious injury was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, and the defendant appreciated that fact.

What is the actus reus of murder cases?

This can either be an act or an omission.
An omission means not acting (e.g., stabbing/hitting).
Any action causing death of a human being.

What did the House of Lords hold in DPP v Smith (1961)?

The House of Lords held that a person is deemed to intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. The court used an objective test: a reasonable person would have foreseen death or serious injury as a likely result of Smith's actions. Therefore, Smith was guilty of murder.

What happened to Woollin's conviction for murder?

Woollin’s conviction for murder was quashed and substituted with manslaughter because the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the law of intent.

What is the mens rea of murder?

Mental element of crime with intention to kill or cause GBH.
Includes direct intent and indirect/oblique intent.

What was the defendant doing in DPP v Smith (1961)?

The defendant (Smith) was driving a car with stolen goods inside. A police officer signalled for him to stop, but Smith refused and drove off.

What was the significance of the DPP v Smith (1961) decision?

The significance was that it established the objective test for intent at the time. This decision was later criticized and reversed by Parliament in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which reinstated a more subjective test for intent.

What is direct intent according to Mohan 1975?

The intention to cause a specific outcome (death or GBH).

What was the court's holding in Cunningham (1981)?

The court acquitted Cunningham, holding that “Maliciously” requires actual foresight of the risk (subjective recklessness), not merely that the act was dangerous. Cunningham did not foresee the risk of harming someone.

What action did the officer take to stop Smith in DPP v Smith (1961)?

The officer jumped onto the car’s bonnet to try to stop him. Smith swerved at high speed in an attempt to shake the officer off.

What did Cunningham do to the gas meter?

Cunningham entered a house to steal from a gas meter. In doing so, he tore the gas meter from the wall, causing gas to leak into the adjoining property.

What happened to the officer in DPP v Smith (1961)?

Eventually, the officer was thrown into the path of oncoming traffic and killed.

When might killing be lawful?

Killing in self-defense.
In the prevention of crime.
Using reasonable force in the circumstances.

What was Cunningham's intention according to the court?

He had no indirect intention of seriously hurting someone, his intention was to steal. Cunningham lacked the required mental state as he did not foresee the risk of harming someone by the gas leak.

What did D do in the case of R v Wickers 1957?

D broke into the cellar of a local sweet shop. He knew the old lady who ran the shop was deaf. The old lady came into the cellar, and D hit her several times with his fists and kicked her once in the head. She died as a result.

What was the result of the gas leak caused by Cunningham?

The victim inhaled the gas, which posed a serious danger to life. Cunningham was charged with maliciously administering a noxious thing under Section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

What significance did the Cunningham (1981) case have?

This case established the test for subjective recklessness: The defendant must have foreseen the risk and gone on to take it anyway. A key precedent in defining mens rea for recklessness in English criminal law.

Is a foetus in the womb a reasonable creature in being?

No, a person cannot be charged unless the child has an existence independent of the mother.

What is the legal issue in DPP v Smith (1961)?

Did Smith have the necessary intent (mens rea) for murder, even if he didn’t intend to kill or cause serious harm?

What does the intention for murder include according to R v Wickers 1957?

The intention for murder includes the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, not just kill.

Under which law was Cunningham charged?

Cunningham was charged with maliciously administering a noxious thing under Section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

What test is questioned for determining intent in DPP v Smith (1961)?

What test should be used to determine intent — subjective (what Smith actually thought) or objective (what a reasonable person would foresee)?

What legal issue is raised regarding Cunningham's actions?

The legal issue raised is: What does “maliciously” mean in the context of this offence? Did Cunningham act maliciously even though he did not intend to harm anyone?

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Law

View summary

A unique study and practice tool
Never study anything twice again
Get the grades you hope for
100% sure, 100% understanding

Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.