R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 102

Facts

• The defendant, Nedrick, held a grudge against a woman and decided to retaliate.
• In the middle of the night, he drove to her home, poured petrol through the letterbox, and set it alight.
• Nedrick left the scene without alerting the occupants to the danger he had created.
• A child inside the house died as a result of the fire.
• Nedrick was charged with murder.
• At trial, the judge directed the jury that if Nedrick knew his actions carried a high probability of causing serious bodily harm, he could be found guilty of murder, even if it was not his specific aim.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s direction to the jury about intention for murder was legally accurate, particularly regarding the distinction between recklessness and intention.
2. What standard should be used to determine when foresight of consequences amounts to intention for murder.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal found the trial judge’s direction flawed and upheld the appeal.
• It held that the direction conflated recklessness and intention by equating awareness of a high probability of harm with intent for murder.
• The court established that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention; foresight may only form the basis for inference of intention in tightly-defined circumstances.
• Lord Lane CJ formulated the "virtual certainty" test: a jury may only infer intention if death or grievous bodily harm was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated this.

Legal Principles

• The "virtual certainty" test requires that intention may only be inferred if the defendant foresaw death or serious bodily harm as a virtually certain result of their actions.
• Awareness of a substantial or high risk does not equate to intention.
• The jury is not obliged to infer intention merely from foresight of virtual certainty, but may do so if the defendant recognized such an outcome.
• The test clarified and departed from earlier, less stringent approaches, specifically supplanting the direction in R v Moloney.
• The principle was subsequently approved and further solidified in R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 and applied in cases such as R v Scalley [1995] Crim LR 504 and R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.

Conclusion

R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 102 established the "virtual certainty" test as the standard for inferring intention in murder cases, marking a clear distinction between foresight and intent and ensuring only defendants who foresee death or serious bodily harm as virtually certain consequences can be convicted of murder on the basis of oblique intention.