Can Someone Explain This Section Of Law To Me?

[acciochelsea]

I have read it over but just don't understand what it means. It is section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—
(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Thank you!!

[dannyk13]

Put simply it means that the defendant intended or foresaw the result of his actions.

[Zacs-Master]

It means ther must be evidence, rather than inference that the accusers intentions were to cause the circumstances which led to their arrest and charging.

[woofgang]

I think prior to this, the law didn't allow you not to intend the obvious consequences of your actions. So you couldn't say "yes I pushed him off the top of a 40 storey building but I didn't intend to kill him"

[hc4361]

A scenario is the best way to explain it.

Jack is furious with John and wants to scare him and warn him off. Jack goes to John's house and rings the doorbell and knocks the door - nobody comes to the door.

Jack sets fire to the house not realising that John is in the shower and didn't hear the doorbell or the knocking. John dies.

The court or jury cannot say that Jack set out to kill John even though it is a probable result of setting fire to the house. They have to look at all the evidence including Jack's intentions and motives.

[Old_Geezer]

I feel sure that if they put it in simple English then it would all be much clearer. "By reason of", and "but" something that looks much the same, doesn't really help.

The example helped.

[Peter Pedant]

accio
you have a lawyer
let him do the complex thought stuff on law
and not you try it yourself from scratch in a few days

lawyers DO find loopholes in complex law but it is not often
like this
http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/2015/10/20/gallery/team-gb-triathlete-admits-supplying-drugs-77039/

where the Crown failed to seek the AG's permission for a cross border prosecution [ saying that it wasnt cross-border (so not permission rqd) and then when it became obvious that it was, went oops! all defendants acquitted on a point of law ]

the section says that the jury should decide on cause
by considering ALL evidence

I dont think this is a let-out for you