- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Walker and Hayles (1990) CA: Attempted Murder & Intention
Facts:
Facts:
- Walker and Hayles threw the victim (V) from a third-floor balcony.
- V survived the fall.
- Were Walker and Hayles guilty of attempted murder? This hinged on proving mens rea (intention to kill).
- The Court of Appeal held that Walker and Hayles were guilty of attempted murder.
- The court addressed the degree of probability of death required to infer an intention to kill, particularly in light of previous case law (Hancock and Nedrick).
- Departure from Absolute Certainty: The court acknowledged that legal judgments often involve degrees of probability, not absolute certainty.
- Rejection of "Virtual Certainty" as Sole Test: The court rejected the notion that intention to kill can only be inferred when death is a "virtual certainty."
- "Very High Degree of Probability" Acceptable: The court stated that using the phrase "very high degree of probability" is not a misdirection to the jury, provided:
- The line between intention and recklessness is clearly maintained.
- The jury is instructed that it is their role to infer intention based on the degree of probability in the specific case.
- This case clarifies that while a high degree of probability of death is required to infer intent to kill for attempted murder, "virtual certainty" is not the sole threshold.
- The jury must assess the specific facts and circumstances to determine if the defendant intended to kill, considering the probability of death resulting from their actions.
- Clear distinction must be made to the jury of intention vs recklessness when discussing probability of outcomes.
0 Comments