|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
This case ([1985] 2 WLR 257) reinforces the decision
of RVMoloney1985 in which it was stated
that forsight of the consequences of one's action
was evidence that the consequences were intended
(see: Intention), but the forsight and the intention
were not the same thing. However, Lord Scarman did stress
that the term `natural consequences' in the earlier case
was open to misintepretation, and that it should be taken
to mean that the evidence of intention became stronger
as the connection between the action and the consequences
became stronger. Scarman also reiterated that
normally a jury should use its common sense to determine
whether intention was a factor or not.
The facts of the case are that Hancock and Shankland
pushed a paving slab off a motorway bridge into the path
of a car, killing the driver. They claimed that they only
intended to frighten the people in the car (they were
coal miners who had refused to join the strike action of
which Hancock and Shankland were involved). The trial
judge directed the jury based on HyamVDPP1974,
but the House of Lords confirmed that the criteria
in Hyam were too broad -- being too easily confused
with recklessness -- and that Moloney was to be
preferred.
CaseLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|