R v Woollin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R v Woollin | |
| House of Lords | |
| Date decided: | 22 July 1998 |
| Full case name: | Regina v Stephen Leslie Woollin |
| Citations: | [1999] 1 A.C. 82; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382; [1998] 4 All E.R. 103 |
| Judges sitting: | Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Lord Nolan; Lord Steyn; Lord Hoffmann; Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Cases cited: | R. v Nedrick (Ransford Delroy) |
| Legislation cited: | Criminal Appeal Act 1968; Criminal Justice Act 1967 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | tbc |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Keywords | |
| Omissions; Intention, Mens Rea, Manslaughter | |
R v Woollin is a case in English criminal law, in which the subject of intention within Mens Rea was examined and refined.
[edit] Facts
Having given various explainations for his three-month-old son's injuries in the ambulance and in the first two police interviews, Woollin eventually admitted that he had 'lost his cool' when his son had choked on his food. He had picked him up, shaken him and thrown him across the room with considerable force towards a pram standing next to a wall about five feet away. He stated that he had not intended or thought that he would kill the child and had not wanted the child to die, but his actions caused the infants death as the child hit the floor, missing the pram.
[edit] Judgement
This case saw the refinement of the language used in directing juries to make a decision on the intention of the defendant. The judges felt the need to direct the jury, and there was a clear conflict between the moral and potential strict legal outcome of the trial. However, in Woollin, the model guidance which was previously laid down in R v Nedrick was modified to state that the jury might “find” rather than “infer” the necessary intention, thereby refining the model guidance and placing it into simple language to assist a jury in reaching an appropriate decision unclouded by concepts of motive or confusion over usage.
It would appear that the above guidance to juries with the use of the word ‘find’ is now the current position in criminal law cases, where a simple direction free from confusion by motive is not possible. This has subsequently been affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyn.
[edit] External Links
 |
This article is a stub relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
