Law Moloney Case Note
- Submitted by: mussen
- Views: 656
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 04/13/2011 04:55 AM
- Pages: 11
- Report this Essay
COURSEWORK TITLE OR DESCRIPTION:
Type a brief description of your coursework here. Do not type the full question.
Read the facts of Moloney [1985] AC 905.
In answering the question ignore any reference to intoxication.
(i) Applying the law as it stands today to the facts in Moloney, would he be convicted of murder or manslaughter if his defence were believed?
AND
ii) What would your answer be if the facts were varied as follows? Moloney, who was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder in addition to being subject to domestic abuse by his wife, thought that his stepfather was calling him a coward.
Applying the law as it stands today to the facts in Moloney, would he be convicted of murder or manslaughter if his defence were believed?
Moloney, the defendant, shot his stepfather, whom he loved, when, in the course of a drunken game to establish who was quicker ‘on the draw’ with loaded shotguns, he pulled the trigger in response to challenge. He did not realize that the gun was aimed, at point-blank range, at V’s head. The defendant loaded his gun quicker, and after doing so, was dared by his stepfather to pull the trigger. He then proceeded to do so, and killed his stepfather as a result. He claimed that he “didn’t aim the gun, I just pulled the trigger and he was dead”. Moloney was convicted of murder but this was then changed to manslaughter after he appealed. In 1985, the House of Lords keeps the Court of Appeal’s position after than Lord Bridge has posed two questions: “first, was death or really serious injury in a murder case...a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as the natural consequence of his act?... If the answer is yes to both questions it is a proper inference...to draw that he intended that consequence”. The jurors believe the defence of Moloney that he was not conscious he was aimed is gun to the victim.
Would he be convicted of murder or...
Type a brief description of your coursework here. Do not type the full question.
Read the facts of Moloney [1985] AC 905.
In answering the question ignore any reference to intoxication.
(i) Applying the law as it stands today to the facts in Moloney, would he be convicted of murder or manslaughter if his defence were believed?
AND
ii) What would your answer be if the facts were varied as follows? Moloney, who was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder in addition to being subject to domestic abuse by his wife, thought that his stepfather was calling him a coward.
Applying the law as it stands today to the facts in Moloney, would he be convicted of murder or manslaughter if his defence were believed?
Moloney, the defendant, shot his stepfather, whom he loved, when, in the course of a drunken game to establish who was quicker ‘on the draw’ with loaded shotguns, he pulled the trigger in response to challenge. He did not realize that the gun was aimed, at point-blank range, at V’s head. The defendant loaded his gun quicker, and after doing so, was dared by his stepfather to pull the trigger. He then proceeded to do so, and killed his stepfather as a result. He claimed that he “didn’t aim the gun, I just pulled the trigger and he was dead”. Moloney was convicted of murder but this was then changed to manslaughter after he appealed. In 1985, the House of Lords keeps the Court of Appeal’s position after than Lord Bridge has posed two questions: “first, was death or really serious injury in a murder case...a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as the natural consequence of his act?... If the answer is yes to both questions it is a proper inference...to draw that he intended that consequence”. The jurors believe the defence of Moloney that he was not conscious he was aimed is gun to the victim.
Would he be convicted of murder or...