Irish Cases that Discuss the Meaning of Intention

Irish Cases that Discuss the Meaning of Intention There are only two reported Irish cases which discuss the meaning of

intention, one in the context of attempted murder,and the other in the

context of capital murder. These cases rely on the relevant English

authority pertaining to the definition of 'intention', and so it is

proposed to deal mainly with the latter cases here. Both the Irish and

English cases are set out below in chronological sequence.

Following DPP v Smith, the next major case in this area of the law to

reach the House of Lords was Hyam v DPP. In this case the accused, Mrs

Hyam, in order to frighten away her rival for the affections of a man,

poured petrol through the letterbox of the house where the woman and

her children were sleeping. She then ignited the petrol causing a fire

in which two of the children were killed.

The trial judge directed the jury that the necessary intent would be

established if the jury were satisfied that when the accused set fire

to the house she knew that it was highly probable that this would

cause death or serious bodily harm.

The question which came before the House of Lords was whether proof of

the fact that the accused knew that it was highly probable that the

act in question would result in death or serious bodily harm would

suffice to establish malice aforethought in the crime of murder. The

House of Lords, by a majority, upheld the conviction for murder. All

five judges were of the view that carrying o...

... middle of paper ...

...ual certainty was not a

species of intention when many view it as a clear example of

intention.

In R v Woollin the House of Lords revisited the issue. The direction

formulated by Lord Lane CJ in R v Nedrick was approved subject to one

important modification. Lord Steyn held that the word 'find' should be

substituted for 'infer'.

The Court also found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by

instructing them that if the defendant realised there was a

substantial risk that he would cause injury, it would be open to them

to find that he had intended to cause injury. According to Lord Steyn,

use of the phrase "substantial risk" had blurred the line between

intention and recklessness, and hence between murder and manslaughter,

and had in effect enlarged the scope of the mental element required

for murder.