Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith
House of Lords
[1961] A.C. 290 (1961)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Jim Smith (defendant) was driving a car with stolen goods in it. A police officer noticed the stolen goods and spoke to Smith through the car’s window as Smith drove slowly. The officer asked Smith to stop, but Smith accelerated and attempted to drive away. The officer grabbed the car in order to prevent Smith from driving away. Smith drove quickly, trying to get the officer to let go. The officer was thrown from Smith’s car into the path of a different vehicle and was fatally injured. Smith was charged with murder for having intended to cause the officer grievous, i.e., serious, bodily harm that ultimately killed the officer. At trial, the jury was instructed that it could infer that Smith had intended to cause the officer serious bodily harm if a reasonable person would have understood that the officer was likely to be seriously harmed by Smith’s actions. Smith was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, Smith argued that he could be guilty of murder only if he had subjectively intended to cause life-threatening harm to the officer, regardless of what a reasonable person might have understood. The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed that Smith’s subjective intent to cause harm was the correct test. Because Smith had not personally intended to seriously harm the officer, the appellate court reduced Smith’s conviction to manslaughter with a 10-year sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions (plaintiff) appealed to the House of Lords.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kilmuir, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.