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.