Ratio Decidendi
For the purposes of murder, where the defendant's purpose was not to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, the jury may find the requisite specific intent only if they are satisfied that: (a) death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's act; and (b) the defendant appreciated that this was the case. This 'virtual certainty' test restricts oblique intent to a narrow category. Even where both elements are satisfied, the jury is not compelled to find intent — they may, but are not required to, infer it. The inference is a permissive one that the jury draws from facts as found, not a mandatory legal conclusion.
Fapte
Nedrick had a grudge against a woman. In the early hours of the morning he poured paraffin through the letterbox of her house and set it alight. The fire spread and one of her children died. Nedrick claimed that he had only intended to frighten the woman and had not intended to kill or cause serious harm to anyone. He was convicted of murder following a jury direction on intention that the Court of Appeal later found to be inadequate, and he appealed.
Rezumatul hotărârii
The Court of Appeal (Lord Lane CJ, Croom-Johnson LJ, and Stephen Brown LJ) allowed Nedrick's appeal against his murder conviction and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. Nedrick had poured paraffin through the letterbox of a woman he bore a grudge against and set fire to it. A child died in the resulting fire. He claimed he had intended only to frighten the woman, not to kill or cause serious harm. The jury convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal held the direction to the jury on intent had been inadequate. Lord Lane CJ, reviewing the state of the law following R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 and R v Hancock [1986] AC 455 (HL), formulated a two-stage jury direction for cases of oblique intent: first, was death or GBH a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions? Second, did the defendant appreciate that such was the case? Only if the jury answered both questions affirmatively were they entitled to infer intent. Nedrick's conviction was reduced to manslaughter. The direction was intended to confine oblique intent to truly exceptional cases where the defendant chose a course of action knowing that death or serious harm was as close to inevitable as human prediction allows. The Nedrick direction was approved and refined by the House of Lords in R v Woollin [1999] UKHL 28, which substituted 'find' for 'infer' but otherwise confirmed the substance.
Citate cheie
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
— Lord Lane CJ at 1028
"The jury should be told that the mere fact that a defendant foresaw death or serious bodily harm as highly probable is not enough to establish the necessary intent for murder."
— Lord Lane CJ at 1029
"Where the simple direction suffices, it should not be elaborated. Only in rare and exceptional cases where the defendant's purpose was something other than to kill or cause serious harm will the further direction on virtual certainty be required."
— Lord Lane CJ at 1028
Tratament ulterior
Approved and reformulated by the House of Lords in R v Woollin [1998] UKHL 28; [1999] 1 AC 82. The Lords approved the 'virtual certainty' test but substituted 'find' for 'infer', indicating that the jury's finding of intent from virtual certainty is substantive rather than merely inferential.
Applied in R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Nedrick/Woollin direction applies in all cases of oblique intent for murder and that the jury's finding of virtual certainty and appreciation is sufficient for the mens rea.
Distinguished in cases where the defendant's direct purpose was to kill or cause GBH — in those cases the simple direction suffices and the Nedrick elaboration need not be given.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help