''R v Hancock'' 985UKHL 9 is an English legal decision of the highest court setting out the relationship between foresight of consequences and

intention Intentions are mental states in which the agent commits themselves to a course of action. Having the plan to visit the zoo tomorrow is an example of an intention. The action plan is the ''content'' of the intention while the commitment is the ''a ...

in cases of

murder Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification (jurisprudence), justification or valid excuse (legal), excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. ("The killing of another person wit ...

. It refers to the case of the killing of David Wilkie. The defendants' stated intention had been to frighten a person, but another was killed. The law, as the judgement of the whole court (a '' per curiam'' decision) was held to hinge on the relationship between ''foresight'' of the range of results of taking a particular action and the ''result'' of that action which must include a specific direction or legal mention of considering the probability of death or serious injury resulting, and other directions which explain the difference between the offence of manslaughter and that of murder.

Facts

During the 1984-1985 miners' strike, the defendants dropped a concrete block from a bridge with the later-stated intention of scaring a coal miner being taken to work in a taxi. Instead, the taxi driver, David Wilkie, was killed. During questioning, the defendants admitted intending to frighten the miner out of attending work, but denied an intention to kill or cause serious injury to him. At the trial, their offer to plead guilty to

manslaughter Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th cen ...

was rejected by the prosecution, who pursued convictions for murder.

Trial

The trial judge directed the jury per ''R v Moloney''''R v Moloney'' 1985 A.C. 905 that The jury, after some deliberation, sought clarification because and the judge gave a further direction but did not expand on his previous guidance. Verdicts of guilty were returned and the defendants sentenced to

life imprisonment Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted people are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives or indefinitely until pardoned, paroled, or otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for ...

Appeals

The

Court of Appeal A court of appeals, also called a court of appeal, appellate court, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of t ...

found that the judge's use of the ''Moloney'' guidelines may have misled the jury as they had been given no guidance as to the weight to be given to the actual ''foresight'' of a consequence (i.e. death or serious bodily harm) in determining the ''intent'' to cause that consequence. It was ruled that this omission was fatal, as in ''Moloney'' it had been stated that Since this guidance had not been available to the jury, the Court substituted verdicts of manslaughter, and the prosecution then appealed. The House of Lords reviewed the ''Moloney'' guidelines issued by itself, and cited the main principles that The court agreed with the Court of Appeal in deciding that the ''Moloney'' guidelines were defective in that the issue (test) of probability should specifically be addressed (mentioned) by the trial judge, and since that had not occurred in the present case, the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed, and the convictions for manslaughter stood.

References

*Judgement: {{DEFAULTSORT:Hancock English criminal case law 1985 in British law House of Lords cases 1985 in case law UK miners' strike (1984–1985)