R v Hancock [1986] 2 WLR 257

Facts

  • Hancock and Shankland, striking miners, threw a concrete block from a bridge onto a motorway during industrial action.
  • The block struck a taxi on the motorway, resulting in the death of the driver.
  • The defendants claimed their intention was to obstruct the road, not to kill or cause serious injury.
  • The trial judge directed the jury using the guidance from R v Moloney, focusing on whether death or serious harm was a natural and foreseen consequence of their act.
  • The defendants were convicted of murder based on this direction.

Issues

  1. Whether foresight of consequences should be equated with intention for the purposes of establishing liability for murder.
  2. Whether the Moloney guidelines on the relationship between foresight and intention provided appropriate directions for the jury.
  3. How the law should treat cases of oblique intention where the result was not the defendant’s direct aim.

Decision

  • The House of Lords substituted the murder convictions with manslaughter verdicts for both defendants.
  • The House of Lords found that the Moloney directions regarding foresight and intention were unclear and potentially misleading for juries.
  • The ruling established that foresight of a consequence is not the same as intention, but is evidence from which intention may be inferred.
  • The judgment clarified that the more probable a consequence is, and the more likely it is foreseen, the more easily intention can be inferred, though the jury must not treat foresight as conclusive of intention.

Legal Principles

  • Foresight of consequences is not intention itself, but it is relevant as evidence indicating whether the defendant had intention.
  • Jury directions in cases of murder must emphasize that foresight is only part of the broader inquiry into the defendant’s mental state.
  • The law of oblique intention requires assessing both the probability and the foreseeability of a consequence to determine intent, not supplanting proof of actual intent with mere foresight.
  • Later cases (R v Nedrick and R v Woollin) further clarified that intention may be inferred where death or serious harm was a virtually certain result and the defendant realized this.

Conclusion

R v Hancock [1986] 2 WLR 257 is a key case refining the distinction between foresight and intention in criminal law. The House of Lords ruled that foresight of a consequence, while relevant evidence, is not tantamount to intention for murder; instead, it is part of the jury’s analysis of the probability and the accused’s state of mind, shaping the modern approach to oblique intention.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal