Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PURPOSE OF ACT To get away from the policeman. To reverse the decision of the HOL in Smith To frighten the woman Shooting contest
DECISION ON ESTABLISHING INTENTION A person intends the natural and probable consequences of his act. Jury is not bound in law to find that D intended the result because it is a natural and probable consequence his act. All evidence must be considered and not just what D foresaw. Enough that D foresaw that his act was likely or highly likely to cause death or GBH. Jury to ask themselves: 1) Was death/GBH the natural and probable consequence of Ds act? 2) Did D foresee this? If yes, then intention can be inferred. The greater the probability of a consequence occurring, the more likely it was foreseen, and the more likely it was foreseen, the more likely it was intended. Foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention If the jury is satisfied that D recognized that death/GBH was a virtually certain result of his act, then they may infer intention, but they were not obligated to do so. CA: The use of substantial risk by the trial judge in directing the jury was not incorrect though virtually certain was the better phrase to use. The trial judge treated Ds intention as a subjective matter and made it clear to the jury that it was for them draw appropriate inferences from whatever consequences they believed D had foreseen. HOL: Jury should be directed according to the virtual certainty test in Nedrick to find intention. Substantial risk is not enough.
R v Hancock (1986)
R v Nedrick (1986)
R v Woollin (1997/8)
Baby died.