R v Whybrow
For attempted murder, an intention to kill is required, and an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is not enough.
Facts
Mr Whybrow wired up a soap dish in his bath to the electricity supply, while his wife was having a bath, so that she received an electric shock. He was charged with attempted murder. The judge directed the jury that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm was enough for attempted murder, as it is for murder.
Legal principle
The Court of Criminal Appeal said that the judge's direction was wrong, although it upheld the conviction because the jury must have found that he intended to kill. Lord Goddard CJ said that, although an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is enough for murder if the victim dies, an attempt to commit murder requires an intention to kill. The principle remains good law under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which requires an intention to commit the offence.
Related cases on inchoate offences and accessorial liability
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) [1993] 1 WLR 274
- DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350
- Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476
- National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11
- R v Anderson [1986] AC 27
- R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129
- R v Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R 212
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.
