Legal Case Studies: R v Janiszewski, R v Moloney, and Related Cases

This case study provides an analysis of several significant legal cases, beginning with R v Janiszewski, which addresses the impact of mental conditions on sentencing, and R v Johnson, which explores the concept of self-induced provocation. The study also examines the implications of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and the historical context of R v Dudley and Stephens, focusing on the defense of necessity. Furthermore, the analysis extends to cases like R v Woollin, discussing the determination of intent, and R v Moloney, which deals with the concept of oblique intent. The study also covers R v Hancock & Shankland, examining the complexities of foresight in criminal cases. Each case is summarized with its headnote and key rulings, providing a comprehensive overview of legal principles and their application in various scenarios. This analysis aims to provide a detailed understanding of each case's significance and implications in the realm of law.

Bundles for First and Second Ground
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

Bundles for First ground
1. R v Janiszewski (2012) EWCA Crim 2556
Headnote
In this court case, an appellant initially sentences for life was accorded detention for public
protection after his case fails to meet the criteria for life sentence.
Reference
In this case, it was concluded that if an appellant suffered from a condition that could make him
act disproportionately, a murder that results from such context should be treated differently.
Judge concluded that the white boy does not deserve life sentence because he was suffering from
PSTD.
2. R v Johnson (Christopher) [1989] 1 W.L.R. 740
Headnote
The appellant was convicted for self-induced provocation. Appellant’s argument was based on
the self-defense but the judge convicted him for self-induced provocation.
Reference
Referring to the section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, the judge gave the jury authority to
determine whether the provocation was enough to make reasonable man act in a particular
manner
3. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 c. 25
Headnote

The act was created to guide on investigations related to deaths, criminal justice, victims and
witness and any other law related to coroners.
References
The Act states that person A cannot be convicted if he or she is suffering from mental
abnormality that has biological origin. Such suffering should have substantial influence on
Person A’s ability to control normal biological functioning.
4. R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
Headnote
The case focuses on defendants who were forced to survive on cannibalism following the
wreckage of their ship
Reference
This is one of the court cases which established that necessity is not enough to be used as a
defense to a charge of murder. This is because there was no common law supporting the use of
necessity in defense of murder
Bundles for Second ground
1. R v Woollin [1999] AC 82
Headnote
The case concerns a defendant who threw a 3-month old baby on hard surface and the court had
to determine if the defendant knew that his acts was associated with substantial risks.
Reference

In this court case, it was determined that "significant danger" is wrong, deviating from Nedrick's
guidelines1, and obscuring "intention" and "recklessness".
2. R v Moloney [1985] 1 AC 905
Headnote
The case focuses on defendant who shot his step father out of what the judge termed as oblige
intent. Trial first convicted the offender but he appealed and was charged for manslaughter
Reference
In this court case, judge concluded that defendant can be accused of murder if he can foresee his
behavior and make death "a possible outcome," even if he does not wish to have this result, he
has a criminal intent
3. R v Hancock & Shankland [1985] 3 WLR 1014
Headnote
During the strike of the miners, the defendant and another person threw some coagulated triple-
body blocks from the bridge to the road below, in order to block the road and prevent a ride. One
of the blocks hit the windshield of the taxi and the driver died.
Reference
In this court case, judges ruled that the guidelines used in the Moloney case2 had shortcomings
because they did not lead the jury to consider the possibility of things going on
1 The Florida Bar v. Nedick [1992] 603 So. 2d 502
2 R v Moloney [1985] 1 AC 905