s. 8 Criminal
Justice Act
1967
DPP v Smith
1961
Hyam v DPP
1975
R v Moloney
1985
So… how can we make
the House of Lords
change their minds on
this silly test?
So, how do you get rid
of an unwanted
policeman on your car?
SPLAT!!!
Don’t steal my man.
My heart still flames
for him!
Jury will:
1. Not have to decide that D
intended or foresaw it as a result
of his actions just because it was
a natural and probable
consequence. But...
2. Decide on whether D intended or
foresaw that consequence by
inferring from all the
circumstances and evidence they
think is relevant..
If the ordinary man contemplated
that it could result in really serious
harm, then D has intended the
consequences.
The test for foresight is:
Did D foresee that death or GBH
was a highly likely [probable]
result?
TEST:
Is there a gun in this
bullet? Hic!
1.
2.
Was death or GBH a natural
consequence of D’s action? and
Did D foresee this?
Yes to both = can infer intent
R v Hancock &
Shankland 1986
Maloney is unsafe because it doesn’t
mention ‘probable’
Now this should stop
the taxi dead.
The greater the probability of a
consequence, the more likely it was
foreseen. The more likely it was
foreseen, the more likely it was
intended.
Foresight of consequences is only
evidence of intention.
R v Nedrick
1986
TEST:
Let’s burn the house
down!
1. Was death or serious injury a
virtual certainty as a result of
D’s actions
2. Did D appreciate it as such?
If they can answer ‘yes’ to both
branches, then the jury may infer
intent.
R v Woollin
1998
Baby vs wall… who’ll
win?
HL confirms the Nedrick test, and
alters it slightly to say that if the
answer to both branches is yes,
the jury should find intent.
Virtual certainty is the test, not
substantial risk.
1
R v Matthews
& Alleyne 2003
The most recent statement on the
law!
Well, it’s not going to
hurt – he can’t even see
the water! Splash.
D’s foresight of death or GBH as a
virtual certainty is not intent, but
only the evidence from which
intent may be inferred.
Confirms Woollin.
eyne 2003