Criminal Law 1 - Automatism

Front 1

Moloney 1985

Back 1

Mr Moloney got into an argument with his stepfather about who could load and fire a shotgun quickest. In the argument the stepfather was shot dead and therefore Moloney was charged with murder. At the trial the judge directed the jury following the principle established in hyam, that `intention' may be defined as an express desire and purpose to do something, but need not be. Instead, he explained, it was reasonable to assume intention if the consequences are highly probable on the basis of the action carried out. On these grounds Moloney was convicted; it was not necessarily the case that Moloney set out to kill his stepfather, but it was a probable consequence of his actions.

The Court of Appeal supported this decision, but the House of Lords converted it to manslaughter. In so doing a new meaning of `intention' was introduced. Lord Bridge said that intention may be inferred from the common-sense meaning of the term (that the accused has the express purpose of committing some crime, and acts to do so). Ho

Front 2

Miller 1983

Back 2

D was squatting in a building. He lay on a mattress, lit a cigarette and fell asleep. Sometime later he awoke to find the mattress on fire. Making no attempt to put the fire out, he simply moved to the next room and went back to sleep. The fire caused £800 damage. The Dís failure to act to put out the fire was treated by the courts as sufficient for the actus reus of arson.

Front 3

Woolmington 1935

Back 3

Red triangle indicating important information


^[Murder – the actus reus of - innocent until proven guilty, onus on prosecution]
D aged 21 accidentally shot his wife V aged 17. Following quarrels V went back to live with her mother. In order to persuade her to return he took a shotgun to show her and threaten her that he would commit suicide. He tied the sawn off shotgun over his shoulder under his coat, as he showed it to her it went off accidentally killing V.



The issue to be decided in this case was whether Foster's Crown Law (1762) was correct where it said that were a death occurred it is to be presumed to be murder unless the defendant proves otherwise.



Held: Murder cases were reported since at least Mackalley's case in 1611, but there was no authority, for Foster's statement. It was found in a text book and often repeated by other writers and followed by judges, but it was wrong.



Viscount Sankey LC:

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always