R v Hancock and Shankland [1986]

1. Facts:

• During a miners' strike, D1 and D2 threw a concrete block from a bridge onto a motorway below.

• The block struck a taxi, killing a working miner and the taxi driver.

• The defendants claimed their intention was only to block the road, not to cause harm.

2. Outcome:

• The Court of Appeal substituted the original conviction with manslaughter.

• The court emphasised that the jury should assess the “probability of a consequence” when determining the defendants’ intent.

• The higher the probability of the consequence occurring, the more likely it was that the defendants intended the outcome.

• Foresight of a consequence was to be used as evidence of intention, not as a definitive measure of intent.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Application of Moloney: Hancock and Shankland applied the Moloney test for intention, focusing on whether the defendants foresaw the consequence as a natural and probable result of their actions. This reinforced the idea that foresight of consequences could indicate intention but was not conclusive in itself.

• Probability and Intention: The case clarified that a higher probability of a consequence occurring makes it more likely that the defendant had the intention to bring about that consequence. This approach provided a more nuanced understanding of how foresight relates to intention.

• Jury's Role: The ruling highlighted the importance of the jury’s role in considering the probability of the outcome when determining intent, adding a layer of uncertainty to how intention is established in cases involving recklessness or foresight.

• Legal Standard: Hancock and Shankland continued to use foresight as evidence of intention, which contributed to the ongoing debate about the clarity and fairness of the legal standards for determining criminal intent.