R v Nedrick
A jury may infer intention only if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that this was the case.
Facts
Mr Nedrick had a grudge against a woman. He poured paraffin through the letterbox of her house and set it alight. The house burned down, and the woman's son died in the fire. Mr Nedrick said that he had only wanted to frighten the woman, not to kill anyone. He was convicted of murder after the judge directed the jury that he was guilty if he knew that it was highly probable that the fire would cause death or serious injury.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the murder conviction and substituted manslaughter. Lord Lane CJ said that 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.
Related cases on mens rea
- Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245
- R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341
- R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59
- R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
- R v G [2003] UKHL 50, [2004] 1 AC 1034
- R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455
- R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
- R v Le Brun [1992] QB 61
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
