The mens rea of murder
Part 1: Intention
There are two ways of proving the intention of murder according to Lord Coke’s definition:
1) Express malice aforethought (intention to kill)
2) Implied malice aforethought (intention to inflict serious harm i.e. GBH)
Implied malice aforethought – the serious harm rule
- This means the intention to ‘inflict serious harm’ means that the defendant can be
guilty of murder even if he did not intend to kill.
- This was established in Vickers (1957): defendant broke into a shop knowing the lady
was deaf. The old lady saw and the defendant hit her and kicked her in the head. The
victim died and the defendant was convicted of murder.
The court of appeal upheld the defendant’s conviction stating: if the defendant
intends to inflict GBH and the victim dies, then the defendant has sufficient ‘malice
aforethought’ for murder.
- In the case of Cunningham (1981), the house of lords approved the court of appeal’s
decision in Vickers (1957).
- The defendant was involved in a bar fight and hit the victim with a stool. The victim
died but the defendant claimed he did not intend to kill or inflict life threatening
injuries on the victim.
The house of lords confirmed that intention to inflict ‘really serious harm’ was
sufficient malice aforethought for murder.
Direct intention
- Intention is when something was your aim/purpose/goal and it is fulfilled.
- R V Mohan
Indirect intention
- When the defendant’s aim is not what occurred but the result was an unfortunate
by-product of it.
- To infer indirect intent, it must be shown that the defendant foresaw that the
forbidden consequence would result from his actions.
Indirect intention – foresight of consequence
Moloney (1985)
- Defendant and stepfather were drunk and they were trying to see who could load
and fire a shotgun first. The defendant pulled the trigger and the victim died but he
argued that he didn’t intend to harm or kill the victim. The defendant was convicted
of murder but his conviction was quashed.
- The house of lords set out a 2 part test for inferring indirect intent:
1) Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant’s
actions?
2) Did the defendant foresee that the consequence as being a natural result of his
actions?
Part 1: Intention
There are two ways of proving the intention of murder according to Lord Coke’s definition:
1) Express malice aforethought (intention to kill)
2) Implied malice aforethought (intention to inflict serious harm i.e. GBH)
Implied malice aforethought – the serious harm rule
- This means the intention to ‘inflict serious harm’ means that the defendant can be
guilty of murder even if he did not intend to kill.
- This was established in Vickers (1957): defendant broke into a shop knowing the lady
was deaf. The old lady saw and the defendant hit her and kicked her in the head. The
victim died and the defendant was convicted of murder.
The court of appeal upheld the defendant’s conviction stating: if the defendant
intends to inflict GBH and the victim dies, then the defendant has sufficient ‘malice
aforethought’ for murder.
- In the case of Cunningham (1981), the house of lords approved the court of appeal’s
decision in Vickers (1957).
- The defendant was involved in a bar fight and hit the victim with a stool. The victim
died but the defendant claimed he did not intend to kill or inflict life threatening
injuries on the victim.
The house of lords confirmed that intention to inflict ‘really serious harm’ was
sufficient malice aforethought for murder.
Direct intention
- Intention is when something was your aim/purpose/goal and it is fulfilled.
- R V Mohan
Indirect intention
- When the defendant’s aim is not what occurred but the result was an unfortunate
by-product of it.
- To infer indirect intent, it must be shown that the defendant foresaw that the
forbidden consequence would result from his actions.
Indirect intention – foresight of consequence
Moloney (1985)
- Defendant and stepfather were drunk and they were trying to see who could load
and fire a shotgun first. The defendant pulled the trigger and the victim died but he
argued that he didn’t intend to harm or kill the victim. The defendant was convicted
of murder but his conviction was quashed.
- The house of lords set out a 2 part test for inferring indirect intent:
1) Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant’s
actions?
2) Did the defendant foresee that the consequence as being a natural result of his
actions?
