Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



#crime #law #mr
The lack of explanation of 'natural consequence' in Lord Bridge's suggested guidance to the jury led to confusion and further appeals in subsequent decisions. The Court of Appeal in R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 gave a clearer test:

'… (the jury) are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.' (Per Lord Lane CJ)

If you want to change selection, open document below and click on "Move attachment"

pdf

cannot see any pdfs


Summary

statusnot read reprioritisations
last reprioritisation on suggested re-reading day
started reading on finished reading on

Details


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.