Intrebari la Badea:

4.1 Prosecutors must only start or continue a prosecution when the case has passed both stages of
the Full Code Test. The exception is when the Threshold Test may be applied (see section 5).

4.2 The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the evidential stage; followed by (ii) the public interest
stage. De ce procurorii regali trebuie numaidecit sa urmareasca aceste doua etape? Ce are interesul
public de a face aici?

2. R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 House of Lords

The defendant shot his step father killing him. Evidence was produced
that the pair had a good relationship. They had been celebrating the
defendant's grandparents’ ruby wedding anniversary and had consumed a
quantity of alcohol. The rest of the family had retired to bed and the two
stayed up drinking. The defendant told his step father that he wanted to
leave the army. The step father was not happy at the news and berated
the defendant. He told him he could load, draw and shoot a gun quicker
than him and told him to get the guns. The defendant returned with two
guns and took the challenge. The defendant was first to load and draw
and the step father said, "I don't think you have got the guts but if you
have pull the trigger". The defendant pulled the trigger but in his drunken
state he did not believe the gun was aimed at the step father. The trial
judge directed on oblique intent and the jury convicted. The Court of
Appeal dismissed the appeal and the defendant appealed to the House of
Lords. [https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Moloney.php]
2. Ce inseamna oblique intent?
3. Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

4. Define Law

5. How do civil and criminal law differ?

6.What are the parties called in a criminal case?

7.What are the three categories of criminal offence?

8. In what two courts are criminal trials heard?

9. If I had been convicted of murder and wanted to appeal, what court would I appeal to?

10.Who is the head judge of that court?

11.If I had been convicted of speeding and wanted to appeal, what court would I appeal to?

12.What is meant by the burden of proof?

13.What standard of proof is required in a criminal case?

Held:

The defendant's conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter. It was not a case of
oblique intent and the judge should not have issued a direction relating to further expansion of
intention.

Lord Bridge:

"The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of
specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and
leave it to the jury's good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent,
unless the judge is convinced that, on the facts and having regard to the way the case has been
presented to the jury in evidence and argument, some further explanation or elaboration is strictly
necessary to avoid misunderstanding."

Lord Bridge also gave guidance on the approach for the test on oblique intent:

"In the rare cases in which it is necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of consequences, I
do not believe it is necessary for the judge to do more than invite the jury to consider two questions.
First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be
proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary
act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his
act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference
for them to draw that he intended that consequence.