판결 이유
For oblique intent in murder, the jury should consider whether death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and whether the defendant appreciated this.
사실관계
Nedrick poured paraffin through the letterbox of a woman's house and set it alight. A child died in the fire. Nedrick said he did not intend to kill anyone.
판결 요약
The Court of Appeal held that the jury should ask: was death or really serious injury a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's action, and did the defendant appreciate that such was the case? If so, the jury may infer that the defendant intended the consequence.
주요 인용문
"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 as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
— Lord Lane CJ
후속 처리
Approved and slightly reformulated in R v Woollin [1999] UKHL 28, which confirmed 'virtual certainty' as the test for oblique intent.