R v Nedrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal law in English law
Part of the common law series
Classes of crimes
Summary  · Indictable
Hybrid offence  · Regulatory offences
Lesser included offence
Elements of crimes
Actus reus  · Causation
Mens rea  · Intention (general)
Intention in English law  · Recklessness
Criminal negligence  · Corporate liability
Vicarious liability  · Strict liability
Omission  · Concurrence
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offences
Incitement  · Conspiracy
Accessory  · Attempt
Common purpose
Defences
Consent
Duress  · Necessity  · Self-defence
Provocation  · Diminished responsibility
Insanity
Crimes against the person
Common assault  · Battery
Actual bodily harm  · Grievous bodily harm
Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Murder  · Manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter  · Harassment
Public order and crimes against property
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Malicious Damage Act 1861
Public Order Act 1986
Public nuisance
Crimes of dishonesty
Theft Act 1968  · Theft  · Dishonesty
Robbery  · Burglary  · TWOC
Deception  · Deception offences
Blackmail  · Handling
Theft Act 1978  · Forgery
Fraud Act 2006  · Computer crime
Sexual crimes
Rape  · Kidnapping
Crimes against justice
Bribery  · Perjury
Obstruction of justice
See also Criminal Procedure
Criminal Defences
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts  · Evidence
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

R v Nedrick (Ransford Delroy) (1986) 8 Cr. App. R. (S.) 179 is an English criminal law case dealing with mens rea. The court said that there may be no case where intention to offend is inferred, unless the actions of the defendant are so dangerous, that death or serious injury is a virtual certainty.

The defendant poured paraffin oil through the letterbox of a house and set it alight. A child was killed by his actions, but the defendant had not meant to kill anyone.

The court set down model guidance for juries in cases where intention was unclear:

“Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the 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 …The decision is one for the Jury to be reached upon a consideration of all the evidence.”[1]

The court said that he should have foreseen that consequences of his actions, and therefore inferred intention to cause injury. The charge was lessened to manslaughter however.

[edit] References

  1. ^ ([1986] 1 W.L.R. 1025)