Regina v Woollin: CACD 12 Aug 1996

The defendant threw his child in anger onto a hard surface. He argued that he did not intend the consequences, the death of the child.
Held: A direction from the judge as to the making of an inference of intent from the consequences of an act, must be made only with care, particularly in the absence of other evidence. Discussing Nedrick, Roch LJ said: ‘although the use of the phrase ‘a virtual certainty’ may be desirable and may be necessary, it is only necessary where the evidence of intent is limited to the admitted actions of the accused and the consequences of those actions. It is not obligatory to use that phrase or one that means the same thing in cases such as the present where there is other evidence for the jury to consider.’
Roch LJ
Times 12-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 Crim App R 97
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Nedrick CACD 10-Jul-1986
The appellant poured paraffin through the front door of a house and set it alight. In the fire a child died.
Held: Lord Lane CJ considered whether a simple direction to the jury on intent to either kill or to do serious bodily harm was . .
CitedRegina v Williams 1984
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.88346