R v Nedrick [1986]

1. Facts:

• D poured petrol through the letterbox of a house and ignited it with the intent to frighten the occupants.

• The fire led to the death of a child in the house.

• It was virtually certain that the act of setting the fire would result in serious injury or death.

2. Outcome:

• The Court of Appeal substituted the conviction for murder with manslaughter.

• The court held that equating foresight of consequences with mens rea (MR) was incorrect.

• Introduced the “virtual certainty” test: the jury should not infer intention unless it was virtually certain that death or serious injury would result, and the defendant appreciated this certainty.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Virtual Certainty Test: The case established that for intention to be inferred from foresight, the consequence (death or serious injury) must be virtually certain, and the defendant must have recognised this certainty. This refined the test for intention, distinguishing between foresight and actual intention.

• Clarification of Intention: Nedrick clarified that foresight of consequences alone does not equate to intention. The test for intention requires a higher degree of certainty, focusing on the defendant's awareness of the likely outcome.

• Impact on Legal Standards: This case shifted the approach to determining intention, moving away from a straightforward inference based on foresight and towards a more stringent requirement of virtual certainty. This aimed to provide a clearer and fairer standard for evaluating intent in criminal cases.