Moot Prep Week 3

May it please your LORDSHIP/LADYSHIP, I, Jay Johnson, appear on behalf of the

senior counsel of the respondent in this case
I submit that the Woolin direction is merely permissive and in no way binds the
jury into a finding of intent. It thus leaves the jury to apply ordinary sense and
understanding of what intention means.
R v Woolin [1999] 1 AC 82
Submission 1: The direction was clear and simple
In the case of the Crown and Woolin which can be found in volume 1 of the
appeal cases for the year 1999 on page 82. Lord Hope stated: I attach great
importance to the search for a direction which is both clear and simple. It should
be expressed in as few words as possible.
In this case it is clear that the direction given was clear and simple enough for
the jury to understand.
The direction was simply that if the jury conclude that it was a virtual certainty
that peter would die or suffer really serious physical harm as a result of being
thrown from the window, and that Mr Baker must have been aware of such a risk,
they were entitled to convict him of murder on that basis.
This clearly illustrates that the direction was appropriate as:
The direction given was clear; the jury did not HAVE to find Mr Baker guilty
of murder, but they were entitled to do so.
The direction was simple enough for the jury to understand that this was
the case
Therefore the jury were not misdirected by any means, they knew that
they had the option to find Mr Baker not guilty of murder but chose to do
so on the evidence supplied to them throughout the case.
Submission 2: The jury make their decision based on fact
In the case of Woolin, Lord Hope stated It is unlikely, if ever, to be helpful to tell
the jury that they should ask themselves these questions. I think that it would be
better to give them the critical direction, and then to tell them that the decision
was theirs upon a consideration of all the evidence.
This also supports the idea that the direction was appropriate because:
It shows that the decision should be made by the jury with consideration
of all of the evidence, not whether or not they feel sorry for Mr Baker.
The direction itself was not saying that Mr Baker had to be convicted of
murder, rather that the jury had the option to do so, clearly the jury have
used their own findings, based on the facts of the case to convicting Mr
Baker, which the direction allowed them to do.
End:
For these reasons, my LORD/LADY and those by my lower counsel I submit that
this appeal should be dismissed
Perhaps there are some issues on which I may be of further assistance?
I am obliged, my LORD/LADY