What is the ratio in R v Moloney?

Intention for murder requires the defendant's purpose/aim to cause the consequence, or acting with virtual certainty the consequence will occur. Mere foreseeability is insufficient.

What did the court decide in R v Moloney?

The House of Lords substituted manslaughter for murder, holding that intention cannot be established through foreseeability alone but requires purpose or virtual certainty.

Why is R v Moloney important for criminal law?

It established the fundamental test for intention in murder cases, clarifying that mens rea requires more than foreseeability and setting the foundation for subsequent cases like Nedrick.

What is the ratio in R v Moloney?

Intention for murder requires the defendant's purpose/aim to cause the consequence, or acting with virtual certainty the consequence will occur. Mere foreseeability is insufficient.

What did the court decide in R v Moloney?

The House of Lords substituted manslaughter for murder, holding that intention cannot be established through foreseeability alone but requires purpose or virtual certainty.

Why is R v Moloney important for criminal law?

It established the fundamental test for intention in murder cases, clarifying that mens rea requires more than foreseeability and setting the foundation for subsequent cases like Nedrick.

Criminal1 min read

R v Moloney

[1985] AC 905House of Lords1985

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“House of Lords clarifies test for intention in murder cases”

Facts

Moloney shot and killed his stepfather during a drunken game to see who could load and draw a shotgun fastest. There was no malice between them, and Moloney claimed he had no intention to kill or cause serious harm, only to be first to pull the trigger.

Issues

What constitutes sufficient intention for murder, particularly regarding oblique intention where death is not the primary purpose but a foreseen consequence of the defendant's actions?

Held

The House of Lords quashed the murder conviction and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. The court held that intention should be given its ordinary meaning, and foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention, not intention itself.

Significance

This case established the foundational test for intention in English criminal law, particularly for distinguishing murder from manslaughter. It remains influential in determining when foresight of consequences constitutes sufficient mens rea for murder.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Moloney. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 (HL)

Criminal LawHomicideMens Rea

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.