## 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.
