“Foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intention, not intention itself in murder.”
Matthews and Alleyne threw their victim from a bridge into a river, knowing he could not swim. The victim drowned. They were convicted of murder. They appealed, arguing they did not intend to kill but only intended to drop him in water.
Whether foresight that death or serious harm is virtually certain constitutes intention for murder, or whether it is merely evidence from which intention may be inferred.
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but clarified that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intention, not intention itself. The jury was entitled to infer intention from the evidence.
This case clarified the correct interpretation of Woollin and remains the leading authority on the relationship between foresight and intention in murder. It preserves the distinction between evidence of intention and intention itself, maintaining the jury's evaluative role.
You're reading the free summary of R v Matthews and Alleyne. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.