R v Nedrick [1986]


  • The defendant poured paraffin though the letter box of a house, in which the victim (a child) was located
  • The defendant did not wish for anyone to die


  • Did the defendant murder the victim?


  • No


  • A conviction of manslaughter was substituted due to a defective buy xanax with paypal direction given by the judge
  • Where there is no direct intent, a judge is entitled to direct a jury that intent may be inferred if the resulting death was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated this virtual certainty (two independent requirements)
RELATED CASE  R v Konzani [2005]

Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 25th December 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy