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.