R v Woollin
1999 · 1 AC 82
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Woollin lost his temper when his baby son choked. He threw the child four or five feet across the room. The child died. He said he had not thought he would kill the child and had not intended to. The judge directed the jury in terms of a substantial risk of grievous bodily harm.
- Issue
- Is foresight of a substantial risk enough for the intention in murder?
- Held
- The House of Lords substituted manslaughter. A direction on foresight must follow Nedrick. Substantial risk blurs intention and and widens murder.
- Principle
- The model direction is . A substantial risk is recklessness, not the intention required for murder.
- Why it matters
- It is the last case in the line from Moloney.
Words and Latin in this note
- Oblique intention
- A result the accused does not want, but foresees as a virtual certainty, and goes on to cause. Foresight of a merely probable result is not intention. Open the note.
- Recklessness
- The conscious taking of an unjustified risk. The accused foresaw the possibility of the harm and went on. The older Caldwell test, which treated a person as reckless for giving no thought to an obvious risk, has been discarded. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.