Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


R v Nedrick

[1986] 83 Cr.App.R 267

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 07:03 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Nedrick

N poured paraffin into a woman’s letter box and started a fire, as a result of which one of her children had died. He protested that he did not want anyone to die. The judge directed the jury that if death had been the highly probable result they should convict on murder. He was convicted and appealed. The appeal was allowed since the judge had equated foresight with intent, when in fact foresight is evidence of intent. Therefore to convict based on foresight is only acceptable where the consequence is appreciated as inevitable by the defendant, so that no other conclusion can be found except that he intended what he did. The charge of murder was substituted for one of manslaughter. 

R v Nedrick crops up in following areas of law