R v Nedrick [1986] 83 Cr.App.R 267

KEY POINTS

• In murder cases, if it's not clear from a simple direction, the jury should understand that they can't infer intention unless they're convinced that death or serious harm was almost certain due to the defendant's actions and the defendant knew this. The decision lies with the jury based on all the evidence presented.

• Intent can be deduced if these two conditions are present: 

  1. The outcome was nearly certain due to the actor's actions; and 

  2. The actor was aware of this near-certain outcome.

FACTS

• The appellant held a grudge against Viola Foreshaw and, following threats to "burn her out," he went to her house. He poured paraffin through the letter-box and onto the front door, igniting it without warning.

• The house burned down, resulting in the death of Viola's 12-year-old son, Lloyd. The appellant initially denied involvement but later confessed to police, emphasising he didn't intend for anyone to die and claiming he only sought to frighten her.

JUDGEMENT

• Appeal allowed.

COMMENTARY

• The judgement strikes a balance between recognizing the importance of intention in criminal law and the necessity of clarifying its boundaries. It acknowledges that foreseeing a highly probable result can be tantamount to intending that result, while avoiding the potential overreach of criminal liability.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Nedrick 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. 

RELATED CASES

• R v Moloney

• R v Woollin

• R v Hancock and Shankland

• R v Matthews and Alleyne