Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
|Case/Statute||Act Leading To Undesired Consequence||Purpose||Undesired Consequence||Decision on How Intention is to be Established|
v Smith (1961)
|Driving off with
policeman holding on to car
|To get away from the
|Policeman fell off
car and killed by oncoming vehicle
|Person intends the
natural & probable
consequences of his
|Section 8 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1967
|To reverse the
decision in DPP v Smith
|Jury not bound to
find that D intended result just because it was a natural and probable
result of D’s act.Look
at all relevant evidence and decide D’s intention.
v DPP (1975)
|D put burning
newspaper through letterbox
|To frighten the
woman who lived in the house
|Death of lady’s
|Enough that D
foresaw that his actions were likely or highly likely to cause death or
v Moloney (1985)
|Firing live bullet||Shooting contest||Death of stepfather||Jury to ask
(1) Was death or gbh
the natural consequence of D’s act? And
(2) Did the D
If yes to both
questions, then can infer intention (HL).
v Hancock and Shankland (1986)
|D’s threw concrete
block on to motorway
|Intended to block
the road used by non-striking miners
|Death of taxi driver||The greater the
probability of a consequence occurring, the more likely it was foreseen,
and the more likely it was foreseen the more likely it was intended.
consequences is only evidence of intention (HL).
|Case/Statute||Guilty Act||Purpose||Undesired Consequence||Decision|
v Nedrick (1986)
|D put petrol bomb
|D wanted to frighten
the owner of the house
|Child burned to
|If jury satisfied
that D recognised that death or sbh would be a virtually certain result
of his act, then they may infer that D intended to cause that result, but not
obliged to do so (CA).
v Scalley (1995)
|D set fire to a
|To destroy flat||Death of child||Judge failed to
explain that if jury satisfied that D did see death or serious injury as
virtually certain, then could infer intention but did not have to (CA).
v Woollin (1998)
|Lost temper and
threw baby onto hard surface
|Frustration at baby
|Death of baby||Jury should be
directed according to the Nedrick “virtual certainty” test to find intention.
Substantial risk is not enough (HL).
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: