R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003]
Share
R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192 addressed the application of the Woollin test established in R v Woollin [1999], clarifying that the test is a rule of evidence rather than a substantive rule of law. The case involved the drowning death of a victim after being thrown into a river by the defendants.
The defendants argued that, despite their knowledge that the victim could not swim, they did not possess the intention for the victim to die. The crucial legal issue in this case was the judge's direction to the jury regarding the test for murder. Specifically, the judge instructed the jury that they must find the defendants guilty of murder if they determined that the defendants had foresight that the victim was virtually certain to die or suffer serious harm.
The Court of Appeal, despite acknowledging a misdirection by the judge, ultimately dismissed the appeal. The rationale provided by Rix LJ focused on the distinction between the tests in Nedrick and Woollin as a rule of evidence rather than a substantive rule of law. Rix LJ clarified that the judge erroneously treated the test from Nedrick and Woollin as a substantive rule, emphasising that the approved direction in those cases did not mandate the jury to find intention for murder based solely on an appreciation that death was 'virtually certain.'
According to the Court of Appeal's ruling, the judge's mischaracterisation of the test did not render the conviction unsafe. The key point emphasised was that the test articulated in Nedrick and Woollin serves as a rule of evidence. It allows the jury to infer intention for murder based on their assessment that death was 'virtually certain,' but it does not dictate that they must find intention in every case where this level of foresight is present.
In essence, Rix LJ clarified that the Woollin test is not a strict formula requiring automatic intent for murder; rather, it provides a permissible inference that the jury may draw in light of the degree of foresight demonstrated by the defendants. The case highlights the importance of correctly characterising the nature of the Woollin test as a rule of evidence, maintaining the distinction between evidentiary considerations and the substantive elements of the crime of murder.
The defendants argued that, despite their knowledge that the victim could not swim, they did not possess the intention for the victim to die. The crucial legal issue in this case was the judge's direction to the jury regarding the test for murder. Specifically, the judge instructed the jury that they must find the defendants guilty of murder if they determined that the defendants had foresight that the victim was virtually certain to die or suffer serious harm.
The Court of Appeal, despite acknowledging a misdirection by the judge, ultimately dismissed the appeal. The rationale provided by Rix LJ focused on the distinction between the tests in Nedrick and Woollin as a rule of evidence rather than a substantive rule of law. Rix LJ clarified that the judge erroneously treated the test from Nedrick and Woollin as a substantive rule, emphasising that the approved direction in those cases did not mandate the jury to find intention for murder based solely on an appreciation that death was 'virtually certain.'
According to the Court of Appeal's ruling, the judge's mischaracterisation of the test did not render the conviction unsafe. The key point emphasised was that the test articulated in Nedrick and Woollin serves as a rule of evidence. It allows the jury to infer intention for murder based on their assessment that death was 'virtually certain,' but it does not dictate that they must find intention in every case where this level of foresight is present.
In essence, Rix LJ clarified that the Woollin test is not a strict formula requiring automatic intent for murder; rather, it provides a permissible inference that the jury may draw in light of the degree of foresight demonstrated by the defendants. The case highlights the importance of correctly characterising the nature of the Woollin test as a rule of evidence, maintaining the distinction between evidentiary considerations and the substantive elements of the crime of murder.
