The D violently shook his 3-month-old baby and then threw him across the room against his pram. The baby died. The D admitted later that the baby had hit the floor hard, but he didnít think that it would kill him, although he accepted that there was a risk of injury. The trial judge told the jury that they might infer intention if they were satisfied that the D appreciated the substantial risk of serious harm by throwing the child. The D was convicted of murder and appealed on the grounds that such a direction might have misled the jury as to the degree of foresight required.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and stated that while the words ëvirtually certainí as in Nedrick were preferable, it was not a misdirection to juries if it was made clear that the decision was theirs.
However, when the case reached the House of Lords their Lordships decided that the judge had confused the jury by his comments about a substantial risk and since it was impossible to know which the of two statements the jury had followed this must be considered a material misdirection.
Consequently, D was acquitted of Murder and a substitute charge of Manslaughter was established
Comments
No comments have yet been made