R v Woollin
A jury is entitled to find intention where death or serious harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this: the leading test for oblique intention.
Facts
Mr Woollin lost his temper with his three month old son and threw him across the room, where the baby hit a hard surface and died from a fractured skull. Mr Woollin said that he had not intended to kill or seriously harm the baby. The judge directed the jury that they could find intention if they were satisfied that Mr Woollin appreciated that there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious harm, and he was convicted of murder.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed the murder conviction and substituted manslaughter. Using the words substantial risk had blurred the line between intention and recklessness. Lord Steyn approved the Nedrick direction, with one change: the jury is not entitled to find 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 Steyn said that find was preferable to infer.
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.
