The model direction for indirect (oblique) intention is to be drawn from the case of Nedrick, ‘a 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.
#alevellaw #alevellawcasesummaries #alevelcriminallaw
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
00:12 Case facts
01:10 Case outcome and legal principle
CASE SUMMARY
Facts:
The defendant lost his temper with his 3-month-old son, he threw him onto a hard surface where he suffered a fractured skull and died. The defendant was convicted of murder. As it was not suggested that the defendant had direct intent, the judge gave the following direction regarding intention at the trial; ‘the defendant has the relevant intent if he realised by his actions that there was a ‘substantial risk’ that he would suffer serious harm.’
Outcome: Guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
Legal principle:
The reference to ‘substantial risk’ was incorrect and the definition of indirect intention given in R v Nedrick (1986) was the model direction; a 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."
