R v Hancock
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1986 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Year | 1986 |
| Date | 1986 |
Crime - Homicide - Murder - Mental element - Concrete block dropped from bridge on to highway killing taxi driver - Prime purpose not to kill or cause injury - Whether death natural consequence of action - Whether foreseeability of probable consequences relevant - Whether meaning of intent requiring elaboration
The defendants, who were miners on strike, pushed a block of concrete and a concrete post from a bridge over a three-lane highway on which a miner was being taken to work by taxi. The block hit the taxi's windscreen and the driver was killed. The defendants were tried on a charge of murder. The case for the Crown was that the defendants had agreed that they would together perform acts, each having the intention either to kill or cause serious injury, that they did act in concert and that the acts in fact done by the defendant who pushed the block killed the taxi driver. The defendants' case was that their intention was not to kill or harm anyone since they thought that the block and post were positioned over the middle lane when the taxi was being driven in the nearside lane, and that their intention was only to block the road or to frighten. In relation to the intent necessary to sustain a charge of murder, the judge adhering to the guidelines laid down by the House of Lords in Reg. v. Moloney [
On appeal by the Crown:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that where it was necessary to direct a Jury on the issue of intent by reference to foresight of consequences, the words “natural consequences” were not by themselves sufficient to imply probability; that the judge should refer to probability and explain to the Jury that the greater the probability of the consequence the more likely it was that the consequence was foreseen, and that if it was foreseen the more likely it was that it was intended; and that, since the judge's direction was liable to have misled the Jury into concentrating exclusively on the causal link between the act and its consequences, the Court of Appeal had been right to quash the convictions for murder (post, pp. 364C–G, 365E, G–366B).
Per curiam. The laying down of guidelines by the Court of Appeal for use in directing Juries in cases of complexity is a function to be exercised sparingly, and limited to cases of real difficulty. If it is done, the guidelines should avoid generalisation so far as is possible and encourage the Jury to exercise their common sense in reaching what is their decision on the facts. Guidelines are not rules of law: judges should not think they must use them. A judge's duty is to direct the Jury in law and help them on the particular facts of the case. The use of the guidelines formulated by Lord Lane C.J. in the Court of Appeal in the present case is not recommended (post, pp. 364H, 365F–G, 366A–B).
The following cases are referred to in the opinion of Lord Scarman:
Reg. v. Hyam [
Reg. v. Moloney [
Reg. v. Smith [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Leung Kam-Kwok v. The Queen (
Rex v. Steane [
Southern Portland Cement Ltd. v. Cooper [
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
The defendants, Reginald Dean Hancock and Russell Shankland, were charged upon indictment with the murder on 30 November 1984 of David Wilkie. On 16 May 1985 at the Crown Court at Cardiff (Mann J. and a Jury) they were convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 and sentenced to life imprisonment. On 31 October 1985 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [
On 19 November 1985 the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (Lord Scarman, Lord Templeman and Lord MacKay of Clashfern) allowed a petition by the Crown for leave to appeal.
The facts are set out in the opinion of Lord Scarman.
Martin Thomas QC and Philip Rees for the Crown.
Gareth Williams QC and Christopher Pitchford for Hancock.
John Prosser QC and Lord Elystan-Morgan for Shankland.
12 December. Lord Scarman announced that the Committee would report to the House that the appeal should be dismissed for reasons to be given later.
27 February. LORD SCARMAN. My Lords, in this case the Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [
“In the rare cases in which it is necessary to direct a Jury by reference to foresight of consequences, I do not believe it is necessary for the judge to do more than invite the Jury to consider two questions. First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The Jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence.”
In the present case, the trial judge having based his direction to the Jury on the guidance which I have quoted, the two accused (respondents to this appeal) were convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions on the ground that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Nedrick
...be established." 9 That direction was given before the publication of the speeches in the House of Lords in Moloney (1985) A.C. 905 and Hancock (1986) 2 W.L.R. 357. In the light of those speeches it was plainly wrong. The direction was based on a passage in the 41st Edition of Archbold, whi......
-
R v Barr
...thrust of the criticism of the summing-up is directed. It is contended that it cannot stand alongside and survive the judgments in Moloney, Hancock and other cases subsequently heard in this court and is wrong in law. 18 I turn first to Hancock (1986) 82 Cr.App.R. 264. That was the case in ......
-
R v Ward
...jury before it was possible for the Judge to have read the speeches of their Lordships in the House of Lords in Moloney (1985) A. C. 905 and Hancock (1986) 2 W. L. R. 357. It was based undoubtedly upon the passage in Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice, Forty-first Edition, which......
-
R v Walker and another
...first case in which this court has had to consider the correct direction in a case of attempted murder since R. v. Moloney (1985) AC 905, R. v. Hancock (1986) AC 455, and R. v. Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 22We have already said that there could be no criticism of the initial direction at t......
-
Defining Fraud: An Argument in Favour of a General Offence of Fraud
...ER 689. R ν Gomez (1993) AC 442. R ν Grant Adams (1995) 1 WLR 52. R ν Hallam (1994) The Times, 27th May, 1994. R ν Hancock & Shankland (1986) 2 WLR 357. R ν Hyam (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 312. R ν Lee Cheung Wing & Lam Man Yau (1992) 94 Cr. App. R 355. R ν Lloyd (1985) QB 829. R ν Nadir (1993) ......
-
Recklessness—The Continuing Search for a Definition
...a different problemwhich was not in contemplation when the language was first used’. And also LordScarman in R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455 at 468e; cited in Field andLynn, above n. 46.Recklessness—the Continuing Search for a made no difference even if Lord Diplock had had such de......
-
Bearing a Constitutional Cross: Examining Blasphemy and the Judicial Role in Corway v. Independent Newspapers
...Hyam [1975] AC 55; [1974] 2 All ER 421; [1974] 2 WLR 607; 59 Cr App R 91 HL; R. v. Maloney [1985] AC 905; R. v. Hancock and Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641; [1986] AC 455; Director of Public Prosecutions v. Dunleavy (1948) It Jur 9. 79 Ignorance is no defence at criminal law. See Charleton, M......
-
Computer Misuse: The Implications of the Police and Justice Act 2006
...Standing Committee D, col. 267, 28 March 2006.58 See Hyam v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41; R v Moloney [1985] AC 905; R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455; R v Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1; R v Woollin [1999] 1 59 See R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412; Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell ......