... v Nedrick where the D wanted to scare a rival resulting in the death of a child. The test developed in R v Nedrick as amended in R v Woolin is; was death or really serious injury virtually certain consequence of D's act and did the D realise. In Eddie's case it is clear that a heavy blow to the head with a spanner must at least result in serious injury and I believe the jury will decide that he recognised this and that they will infer from this intention. However the final decision is the injuries. Therefore, I conclude that the AR and the MR of murder are present and that Eddie will be liable for Dave's murder unless he can use a general or partial defence. Self-Defence is a general defence to murder. It has two elements. Firstly was the force necessary, there must be an immediate threat of ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now