CASE BRIFE

Title: Regina Respondent v Woollin Appellant or R v Woollin

Citation: [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382
Facts
The appellant, Woollin was convicted of murder after he lost his temper and
threw his three- month old son, with great force on a hard surface, thus
resulting in his death. In an interview the appellant admitted that he had
realized there was a risk of serious injury.
The trial judge directed the jury that they might infer intention if they were
satisfied that the appellant appreciated that there was a substantial risk that
he would have caused harm. The appellant was convicted of murder and
appeal on the ground that the judge should not have used the phrase
"substantial risk", which is a test of recklessness, but should have used the
phrase "virtual certainty".
Issue
Was the initial direction of the jury by the judge to find the necessary
intention of the offence was applicable? [No]
Decision
Appeal allowed.
Holding

Murder conviction was substituted for manslaughter.

Reasoning
The first direction of the court was misleading. It was stated by the judge in
the initial direction of the jury that if the jury was satisfied that the appellant
must have realized and appreciated when he threw the child onto the wall
there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious injury to it then it
would be open to you (the jury) to find that he intended to cause injury to
the child and you should convict him of murder. The jury found that the
appellant had the necessary intention thus, rejected a defense of
provocation and they convicted the appellant of murder. The defendant
appeal on the grounds of misdirection. That the direction the judge used to
direct the jury did not follow the principle laid down in the R v Nedrick as the
judge should had substitute substantial risk to virtual certainty. By
directing the jury in terms of substantial risk the judge unacceptably enlarge
the mental element of murder. The appeal wasnt allowed because of what
lord roch L.J observed of the case of R V Nedrick. He thus stated that the
phrase a virtual certainty should be confined to cases where the evidence
of intent is limited to admit actions of the accused and the consequences of
those actions. It is not obligatory where there is other evidence to consider.
This means that in this case there is not enough evidence for virtual
certainty to apply. There was much debate on the issue at hand by The

House of Lords. It was concluded however, that the judge should not have
departed from the Nedrick direction. By using the phrase substantial risk
the judge blurred the line between intention and recklessness thus it was
stated that lord C.Js judgement in Nedrick provide valuable assistance to trial
judges. The model direction is by a tried and tested formula. Trial judges
ought to continue the use of it. The House of Lords agreed that the principle
in R v Nedrick should be used and therefore up held the appeal.
Policy
Principles laid down in previous cases that are deemed to be binding should
be followed. Here the judge misdirected the jury in finding the necessary
intention for murder by the use of the phrase substantial risk totally
ignoring the established principle laid down in R v Nedrick.
The use of that phrase give rise uncertainty as the phrase suggest that the
defendant should have known that there was a large risk in terms of hurting
the child when he threw him. In addition the use of the phrase opens the
float gates for intention for murder as any amount of risk at all present in the
situation that person would be charged for murder. This blurred the line
between intention and recklessness therefore causing a lot of uncertainty.
The court is obligated to follow the rulings of previous cases thus the use of
the phrase virtual certainty would be most suitable as it is established in R
v Nedrick a case previously decided case. This phrase states that the
defendant must literally see and to be sure that once he commits his actions

it would amount to death of the victim. If the defendant did not foresee and
is not sure that his actions would amount to death of the victim then he
cannot be charged for murder. The courts however used the virtual certainty
test as it is tried and tested and directly applicable to the situation in this
present case.