Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


R v Hancock

[1986] AC 455

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 06:49 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Hancock

Two miners pushed a concrete block into the middle of the road that struck a taxi with a miner on the way to work in the back. The driver died. They claimed they were trying to scare or deter people from using the road, while the prosecution contended that they intended murder. The judge asked the jury to consider if death was a natural consequence of their actions. They were convicted. CA quashed the convictions, and HL agreed. Lord Scarman said that foresight was not enough to assert intention. The guidelines in Maloney (Was it a natural consequence) were unhelpful and confused the jury. Scarman’s test for intent is set out here: the greater the probability of the consequence, the more it is likely that the consequence was foreseen. If the consequence was foreseen, the greater probability is that the consequence was also intended. 

R v Hancock crops up in following areas of law