R v Moloney [1985] AC 905

Facts

  • The case arose from a fatal shooting between the defendant, Moloney, and his stepfather, following a drunken competition to see who could load a shotgun faster.
  • Moloney and his stepfather had a close, friendly relationship; after Moloney won the loading competition, his stepfather challenged him to fire the gun.
  • Moloney discharged the shotgun, killing his stepfather.
  • At trial, Moloney was convicted of murder.
  • The main factual dispute was whether Moloney intended to kill or cause serious injury, given the context of intoxication and the friendly nature of the encounter.

Issues

  1. Whether Moloney possessed the necessary mens rea—an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm—required for a murder conviction.
  2. Whether foresight of death or serious injury as a probable consequence is sufficient to constitute intent in murder, or if intent should be treated as a distinct concept from foresight.

Decision

  • The House of Lords allowed Moloney's appeal and substituted his murder conviction with a conviction for manslaughter.
  • The Court held that foresight of a probable consequence is not the same as intention.
  • The judgment clarified that intent should not be inferred merely because the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a natural, probable consequence of their act.
  • The House of Lords emphasized that judges should not elaborate on the meaning of 'intent' unless required to avoid misunderstanding.
  • The Court concluded that evidence of foresight may assist in determining intent but does not equate to a finding of intent itself.

Legal Principles

  • Mens rea for murder requires proof of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, not simply foresight of death or injury.
  • Foresight of a consequence is merely evidence from which intent may be inferred, not conclusive proof of intent.
  • Jury directions on intent must avoid conflating foresight and intention; directions should only elaborate on intent where necessary.
  • The probability of a consequence must be "little short of overwhelming" before it can support an inference of intent.
  • The case established the judicial "golden rule" that intent and foresight are conceptually distinct for the purpose of mens rea in murder.

Conclusion

R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 established that foresight of probable consequences is evidence, not proof, of intent for murder, setting out clear guidance that intent must not be inferred solely from foresight; this clarification has had a substantial and lasting impact on the determination and instruction of mens rea in homicide cases.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal