R v Hancock [1985] UKHL 9 is an English legal decision of the highest court setting out the relationship between foresight of consequences and intention in cases of murder.

During questioning, the defendants admitted intending to frighten the miner out of attending work, but denied an intention to kill or cause serious injury to him.

At the trial, their offer to plead guilty to manslaughter was rejected by the prosecution, who pursued convictions for murder.

It was ruled that this omission was fatal, as in Moloney it had been stated that the probability of the consequence taken to have been foreseen must be little short of overwhelming before it will suffice to establish the necessary intent Since this guidance had not been available to the jury, the Court substituted verdicts of manslaughter, and the prosecution then appealed.

The House of Lords reviewed the Moloney guidelines issued by itself, and cited the main principles that: The court agreed with the Court of Appeal in deciding that the Moloney guidelines were defective in that the issue (test) of probability should specifically be addressed (mentioned) by the trial judge, and since that had not occurred in the present case, the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed, and the convictions for manslaughter stood.