What Is R V Hancock & Shankland's Argument For Murder?

late night party with his stepfather while the rest of the members of the family were asleep. They both were drunk when the stepfather dared the defendant to pull the trigger if he had the guts to do so. Defendant did pull the trigger but without realising that his conduct could harm his stepfather.

The defendant’s conviction for murder was quashed and substituted for manslaughter by the House of Lords, which considered there was not the necessary mens rea for murder. Although this case was decided according to the legislation and known as an improper case for setting guidelines for juries, this judgment came under question too after a year or so in the following case of R v Hancock & Shankland

In the case of Hancock & Shankland, Miners

However, since Smith (1960) court complication in this area was clarified by Nedrick somehow.

Nedrick was overruled by Woolin in the House of Lords and Woolin is the leading case of current time. In this case the defendant killed his three month old baby son by throwing him onto a hard surface. The defendant argued that he did not intend to kill the baby.

The defendant was convicted of murder by trial court following the direction in Nedrick that, ‘intention could be found where defendant foresaw a substantial risk of death or injury’ . Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which was dismissed. However, the House of Lord allowed an appeal and substituted Woolin’s conviction from murder to manslaughter on the basis of the possibility of a jury’s confusion caused by directing on them by the trial judge, when the judge spoke about the ‘substantial risk’. The House of Lords tried to clarify things by giving the jurors discretion that, ‘the standard of virtual certainty set out by the Court of Appeal in Nedrick, adding it is for the jury to find whether defendant intended in this oblique sense’. The word ‘infer’ was changed with the word ‘find’ to make it easy and clearer for the sake of understanding this