R v Woollin

English case infobox
name=R v Woollin
court=House of Lords
date_decided= 22 July 1998
full_name= Regina v Stephen Leslie Woollin
citations= [1999] 1 A.C. 82; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382; [1998] 4 All E.R. 103
judges= Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Lord Nolan; Lord Steyn; Lord Hoffmann; Lord Hope of Craighead
Cases_cited= R. v Nedrick (Ransford Delroy)
Legislation_cited=Criminal Appeal Act 1968; Criminal Justice Act 1967
prior_actions= tbc
subsequent_actions= none
Keywords=Omissions; Intention, Mens Rea, Manslaughter

R v Woollin is a case in English criminal law, in which the subject of intention within Mens Rea was examined and refined.

Facts

Having given various explainations for his three-month-old son's injuries in the ambulance and in the first two police interviews, Woollin eventually admitted that he had 'lost his cool' when his son had choked on his food. He had picked him up, shaken him and thrown him across the room with considerable force towards a pram standing next to a wall about five feet away. He stated that he had not intended or thought that he would kill the child and had not wanted the child to die, but his actions caused the infants death as the child hit the floor, missing the pram.

Judgement

This case saw the refinement of the language used in directing juries to make a decision on the intention of the defendant. The judges felt the need to direct the jury, and there was a clear conflict between the moral and potential strict legal outcome of the trial. However, in Woollin, the model guidance which was previously laid down in R v Nedrick was modified to state that the jury might “find” rather than “infer” the necessary intention, thereby refining the model guidance and placing it into simple language to assist a jury in reaching an appropriate decision unclouded by concepts of motive or confusion over usage.

It would appear that the above guidance to juries with the use of the word ‘find’ is now the current position in criminal law cases, where a simple direction free from confusion by motive is not possible. This has subsequently been affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyn.

External links

* [http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1998/2608.html&query=r+and+v+and+woollin&method=boolean Full Text of Case]
* [http://www.criminallawonline.com Criminal law online]