• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and recklessness - Explain and discuss.

Extracts from this document...


"The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and recklessness. However, such clarity carries the price of both (a) not being able to convict people who ought to be regarded as having the culpability for murder and (b) unjust convictions for murder." Explain and discuss. Nedrick1 updated the law surrounding intention by constructing a model direction which states that a jury should be directed by the judge '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 realised that such was the case'2 Woollin3 extended the verdict given in Nedrick after the 'entitled to infer' intention on the part of the jury was updated to 'entitled to find' by the judges in the Woollin case. Woollin upheld Nedrick's test after the House of Lords stated that the trial judge enlarged the scope of the mental element required for murder and had misdirected the jury. The trial judge told the jury that a 'substantial risk' as to the consequences was only required to infer intention, but the House of Lords declared that the consequences have to be (a) virtually certain and (b) known to be of virtual certainty by the defendant for a conviction of murder to be upheld. ...read more.


A House of Lords Select Committee rejected the inclusion of such a consideration into English law, largely based on the premise that those convicted of manslaughter can still receive a life sentence. As Lord Steyn said in Woollin 'Immediately below murder there is available a verdict of manslaughter which may attract in the discretion of the court a life sentence'7 Over-inclusiveness is something which has to be considered in the direction on intent encompassed by the Nedrick/Woollin model. Alan Norrie suggests that there are cases which would fall within the Nedrick/Woollin model as murder, but which should not. '[There] are cases where there is a 'moral threshold' such that even though the accused could foresee a result as virtually certain, it is so at odds with his moral conception of what he was doing that it could not be conceived as a result that he intended'8 The case of Steane9 shows how someone who foresees the consequences of their action as being virtually certain, would fall within the Nedrick/Woollin direction on intention, even though the intent was one of innocence. Norrie argues that it 'is plausible to argue that at the nub of the case lies a moral gap between what Steane did, broadcasting to assist the enemy, and his purpose, to save his family.'10 Motive is not something to be considered when deciding if a defendant has intent to commit a crime or not. ...read more.


as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant realised that such was the case. However, although this does provide a clear framework to which intention can be ascertained, it could be said to be over-inclusive in that it can be used to convict those who do not appear to be guilty of murder as well as being under-inclusive in other circumstances as it lacks the scope to convict those who should be convicted of murder, as can be seen in the terrorist example by those who act with 'wicked recklessness' Word count = 1,249 Word count including footnotes = 1,343 1 (1986) 1 W.L.R. 1025 2 (1986) 83 Cr App R 267 - Lord Steyn 3 (1999) 1 A.C. 82 4 (1985) A.C. 905 5 Alan Norrie - 'After Woollin' (1999) Crim LR 532 6 1 of the 5 Law Lords presiding over the case 7 (1998) 4 All ER 103, 112 8 Alan Norrie - 'After Woollin' (1999) Crim LR 532 9 (1947) K.B. 997 10 Alan Norrie - 'After Woollin' (1999) Crim LR 532 11 (1994) 3 W.L.R. 514 12 (1996) 1 All E.R. 13 Michael J Allen - 'Elliot and Wood's Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (Eighth Edition)' 14 William Wilson - 'Doctrinal Rationality after Woollin' (1999) 62 M.L.R 448 James Moore 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

A well written essay, which addresses the main issues on point.

4 Stars.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 26/07/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    This can be illustrated using a number of cases, including R v White. In this case the defendant tried to poison his mother but she ended up dying of natural causes before the poison could take effect. Because of this he was not able to be convicted of attempted murder.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    For example if A aims to shoot B and fires, he has started a chain of causation that will ultimately result in B's death. Unless there is a novus actus interveniens by C, A will be liable. The very existence of causation means that actus reus and mens rea may


    Whilst the identification can be considered the aftermath, it cant be considered the immediate aftermath. The facts in Mcloughlin v o brian were on the margin of what the law would allow. Also, there are the two contrasting cases of sion v hampstead and walter v N Glamorgan AHA.

  2. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    the defendant committed the actus reus, thereby making the particular offence "absolute". In the case of R v Larsonneur (1933), the defendant who went to Eire who previously was forced to leave England was deported back to England against her will, she was found guilty of being of "being an

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    The defendant was charged under s.23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which involves maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life. The trial judge directed the jury that malice was the equivalent to wicked and the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction - maliciously means intentionally or

  2. Contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria are very similar in nature and effect. ...

    The bike crashed seriously injuring the claimant who sued the defendant. The defendant tried to plea volenti but was restricted by s.147. However, could the passenger be contributory negligent? It is possible for a defendant to raise a plea of contributory negligence on the passenger.

  1. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Chemicals from Chemi-Kaze?s containers killed many of Flower Power?s stock of plants. Analysis: By statue (Occupier?s liability Act 1957 and 1984), a premises occupier takes responsibility for ensuring the Premises reasonably safe for all those who attend on it (Ward vs.

  2. Exclusion Clauses Scenario Question -an exclusion clause said ice skaters skate at their ...

    It is possible for exclusion of loss and damage to be incorporated if it is brought to the attention of the claimant?s and is accepted by them.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work