R v Woollin
Encyclopedia
R v Woollin is a case in English criminal law, in which the subject of intention within Mens Rea
was examined and refined.
was modified to state that the jury might “find” rather than “infer” the necessary intention, thereby refining the model guidance and placing it into simple language to assist a jury in reaching an appropriate decision unclouded by concepts of motive or confusion over usage.
It would appear that the above guidance to juries with the use of the word ‘find’ is now the current position in criminal law cases, where a simple direction free from confusion by motive is not possible. This has subsequently been affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyne.
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
was examined and refined.
Facts
Having given various explanations for his three-month-old son's injuries in the ambulance and in the first two police interviews, Woollin eventually admitted that he had 'lost his cool' when his son had choked on his food. He had picked him up, shaken him and thrown him across the room with considerable force towards a pram standing next to a wall about five feet away. He stated that he had not intended or thought that he would kill the child and had not wanted the child to die, but his actions caused the infant's death as the child hit the floor, missing the pram.Judgment
This case saw the refinement of the language used in directing juries to make a decision on the intention of the defendant. The judges felt the need to direct the jury, and there was a clear conflict between the moral and potential strict legal outcome of the trial. However, in Woollin, the model guidance which was previously laid down in R v NedrickR v Nedrick
R v Nedrick 8 Cr. App. R. 179 is an English criminal law case dealing with mens rea. The defendant poured paraffin oil through the letterbox of a house, against whose owner he had a grudge. The house was set alight resulting in a child being killed...
was modified to state that the jury might “find” rather than “infer” the necessary intention, thereby refining the model guidance and placing it into simple language to assist a jury in reaching an appropriate decision unclouded by concepts of motive or confusion over usage.
It would appear that the above guidance to juries with the use of the word ‘find’ is now the current position in criminal law cases, where a simple direction free from confusion by motive is not possible. This has subsequently been affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyne.