What is the ratio in R v Hancock and Shankland?

The ratio is that foresight of consequences is evidence from which intention may be inferred by a jury, but foresight is not intention itself. The jury is not bound to find intention simply because consequences were foreseeable.

What did the court decide in R v Hancock and Shankland?

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial, holding that the trial judge's direction on intention was defective and that foresight of consequences is evidence of, not equivalent to, intention.

Why is R v Hancock and Shankland important for criminal law?

It refined the test for intention in murder by establishing that foresight of consequences is merely evidence of intention, moving criminal law towards a more subjective approach to mens rea in homicide cases.

What is the ratio in R v Hancock and Shankland?

The ratio is that foresight of consequences is evidence from which intention may be inferred by a jury, but foresight is not intention itself. The jury is not bound to find intention simply because consequences were foreseeable.

What did the court decide in R v Hancock and Shankland?

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial, holding that the trial judge's direction on intention was defective and that foresight of consequences is evidence of, not equivalent to, intention.

Why is R v Hancock and Shankland important for criminal law?

It refined the test for intention in murder by establishing that foresight of consequences is merely evidence of intention, moving criminal law towards a more subjective approach to mens rea in homicide cases.

Criminal1 min read

R v Hancock and Shankland

[1986] AC 455House of Lords1986

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, not intention itself.”

Facts

Two miners dropped concrete blocks from a bridge onto a road during a strike, killing a taxi driver taking a working miner to work. They claimed they only intended to block the road and frighten, not to kill or cause serious harm.

Issues

Whether foresight of consequences as virtually certain is sufficient to establish intention for murder, or whether it is merely evidence of intention.

Held

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. Foresight of consequences is evidence from which intention may be inferred, but is not intention itself.

Significance

This case refined the test for intention in murder, moving away from objective tests towards a more subjective approach. It remains fundamental to understanding mens rea in homicide cases and is essential reading for criminal law students.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Hancock and Shankland. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455 (HL)

Criminal LawHomicideMens ReaIntentionMurder

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.