R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] AC 455

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The defendants (D) were striking miners who dropped a concrete block from a bridge with the intention of blocking the road to prevent a non-striking miner from working. However, the block struck a taxi driver, killing him. The issue before the court was whether the defendants’ foresight of the potential consequences of their actions was enough to establish intent for murder.

Held: The House of Lords quashed the murder convictions, stating that the guidelines in Moloney were insufficient. They emphasized that foresight of consequences, while relevant, must be considered alongside the likelihood or probability of the outcome. The court emphasized that the greater the probability of the outcome, the stronger the evidence of intent.

💡Levelup: This case clarified that foresight of consequences is just one factor in determining intent, particularly in cases where the consequences were not directly intended but were a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions.