What happened in the RV Woollin case?
R v Woollin. The appellant threw his 3 month old baby son on to a hard surface. The baby suffered a fractured skull and died. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal holding that there was no absolute obligation to refer to virtual certainty.
What is the Woollin test?
Facts in Woollin The court accepted that the defendant did not intend to cause death or harm to the child but that the defendant foresaw there was a risk of causing serious harm to the baby as a result of his actions.
Is Woollin test subjective or objective?
The test for intention is subjective, meaning the court must look at the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of the actus reus.
What is virtual certainty in criminal law?
are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel. sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty. (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the. defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such. was the case.’
What was Woollin charged with?
The appellant lost his temper and threw his three-month-old son on to a hard surface. His son sustained a fractured skull and died. The appellant was charged with murder.
Was Woollin found guilty?
Woollin’s murder conviction was quashed (but not so in the Court of Appeal); leave having been given by the House not the lower court, as the jury instructions were there had to be “substantial risk” of death or grievous bodily harm, which was held to be far wider in scope than virtual certainty; and the actions duly …
What was held in RV Woollin?
R v Woollin was a decision of the highest court of law-defining in English criminal law, in which the subject of intention in mens rea, especially for murder was examined and refined.
Does RV Woollin provide a clear definition of intention?
In R v Matthews and Alleyne, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Woollin test was an evidential rather than substantial rule of law: judges ought to instruct jurors that they may interpret what they would see as certain knowledge on the defendant’s part of the virtually certain consequence of death as evidence of …
How do you prove intentions?
Mere intention to do a wrongful act is itself prohibited by law. An accused will be held guilty if it’s proved that he had an intention to commit the crime but the burden of proof lies on the opposite party and there should be sufficient justification to conclude that intention existed.
What was the crown contend Woollin intent?
The appellant was charged with murder. The Crown did not contend that the appellant desired to kill his son or to cause him serious injury….LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD.
| previous Lords Parliament Commons Search Contact Us Index | |
|---|---|
| © Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 22 July 1998 |
Does Woollin provide a clear definition of intention?
It is clear that the Woollin direction tells us the defendant has the necessary mental state when he either (1) acts with the purpose of killing or doing serious bodily harm; or (2) acts while correctly foreseeing that his action is virtually certain to result in death or serious bodily harm.
Why was Woollin found not guilty?