## Facts

- The defendants threw a victim, whom they knew could not swim, into a river, resulting in the victim's drowning.
- At trial, the judge directed the jury that if they found the defendants foresaw death or serious harm as virtually certain, they must find an intention to kill or cause serious harm, following the precedent in R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.
- The jury convicted the defendants of murder.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal held there was a misdirection as the Woollin guidance was presented as a rule of law rather than an evidential rule.
- Despite the misdirection, the conviction was deemed safe as there was strong evidence the defendants appreciated the virtual certainty of death.

## Issues

1. Whether foresight of virtual certainty of death or serious harm compels a finding of intention for murder, or is merely strong evidence from which intention may be inferred.
2. Whether the trial judge's direction to the jury amounted to a misdirection in law.
3. Whether the misdirection affected the safety of the defendants' conviction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in directing the jury that they must find intention upon foresight of virtual certainty, treating the Woollin test as a rule of law rather than a rule of evidence.
- Clarified that the jury is entitled to find intention from virtual certainty of death but is not required to do so.
- Determined that, despite the misdirection, the conviction was safe given the evidence that defendants likely appreciated the virtual certainty of death.

## Legal Principles

- The Woollin virtual certainty test is a rule of evidence, not substantive law.
- Foresight of a virtually certain consequence is powerful evidence of intent but does not equate to actual intention as a matter of law.
- The role of the jury is to decide intent considering all evidence, including but not limited to foresight of consequences.
- Proper judicial direction must emphasize that intention may be inferred, not presumed, from foresight of virtual certainty.

## Conclusion

R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192 established that foresight of a virtually certain consequence is an evidential basis, not a legal compulsion, for finding intention. The Woollin test assists juries but does not dictate their conclusion, preserving their function as fact-finders. Despite a misdirection at trial, the conviction was upheld, affirming the proper approach to intention in criminal law.
