R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192

Facts

  • The defendants threw a victim, whom they knew could not swim, into a river, resulting in the victim's drowning.
  • At trial, the judge directed the jury that if they found the defendants foresaw death or serious harm as virtually certain, they must find an intention to kill or cause serious harm, following the precedent in R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.
  • The jury convicted the defendants of murder.
  • On appeal, the Court of Appeal held there was a misdirection as the Woollin guidance was presented as a rule of law rather than an evidential rule.
  • Despite the misdirection, the conviction was deemed safe as there was strong evidence the defendants appreciated the virtual certainty of death.

Issues

  1. Whether foresight of virtual certainty of death or serious harm compels a finding of intention for murder, or is merely strong evidence from which intention may be inferred.
  2. Whether the trial judge's direction to the jury amounted to a misdirection in law.
  3. Whether the misdirection affected the safety of the defendants' conviction.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in directing the jury that they must find intention upon foresight of virtual certainty, treating the Woollin test as a rule of law rather than a rule of evidence.
  • Clarified that the jury is entitled to find intention from virtual certainty of death but is not required to do so.
  • Determined that, despite the misdirection, the conviction was safe given the evidence that defendants likely appreciated the virtual certainty of death.

Legal Principles

  • The Woollin virtual certainty test is a rule of evidence, not substantive law.
  • Foresight of a virtually certain consequence is powerful evidence of intent but does not equate to actual intention as a matter of law.
  • The role of the jury is to decide intent considering all evidence, including but not limited to foresight of consequences.
  • Proper judicial direction must emphasize that intention may be inferred, not presumed, from foresight of virtual certainty.

Conclusion

R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192 established that foresight of a virtually certain consequence is an evidential basis, not a legal compulsion, for finding intention. The Woollin test assists juries but does not dictate their conclusion, preserving their function as fact-finders. Despite a misdirection at trial, the conviction was upheld, affirming the proper approach to intention in criminal law.

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