This case established the ‘virtual certainty’ test for oblique intent in murder. It clarified how juries should approach situations where the defendant’s primary aim was not to kill or cause serious harm but their actions created a highly probable risk of death or grievous bodily harm. The Nedrick direction later became foundational in R v Woollin, setting the modern test for indirect intention.

• Nedrick had a grudge against a woman, Viola Foreshaw, and had threatened to "burn her out".

• He poured paraffin through her letterbox and set it alight without warning.

• The resulting fire killed her 12-year-old son.

• He confessed to starting the fire but stated that he "didn't want anyone to die" and only intended to scare the woman.

• At trial, the judge directed the jury in a way that equated foresight of a highly probable consequence with intention.

• Nedrick was convicted of murder.

Whether the judge misdirected the jury by equating foresight of consequences with intention, and what the correct direction should be regarding intent in cases of oblique intention under the law of murder.

• The appeal was allowed.

• The conviction for murder was quashed and replaced with a conviction for manslaughter.

• The court held that the trial judge’s direction on intent was wrong in light of Moloney and Hancock.

• A sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment was imposed for manslaughter.

1. Juries must decide whether the defendant intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm; foresight is evidence of intent but not the same as intention.

2. Where intent is unclear, juries may consider:

   • how probable the consequence was, and

   • whether the defendant foresaw that consequence.

3. A jury may only infer intent if death or serious harm was a virtual certainty (barring unforeseen intervention) and the defendant appreciated that fact.

4. If death or serious harm was not appreciated as virtually certain, the defendant cannot be said to have intended that outcome.