Smyth v The Queen

For that reason we think that we ought not to grant special leave to appeal notwithstanding that we think that the direction complained of is not in accordance with law and ought not to have been given. In this Court disapproval has been expressed on more than one occasion of the use, where a specific intent must be found, of the supposed presumption, conclusive or otherwise, that a man intends the natural, or natural and probable, consequences of his acts: see Stapleton v. The Queen [3] ; Baily v. Baily [4] ; Deery v. Deery [5] ; Gow v. White [6] , per O'Connor J. The ruling of Lord Goddard C.J. in Reg. v. Ward [7] , is difficult to reconcile with his Lordship's statement in R. v. Steane [1] , which we think is to be preferred and is certainly sound. The fact is that, as Cussen J. remarked in Cox v. Smail [2] , the statement that a person must be held to intend the natural consequences of his act merely conceals the true position.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Cited By (1)