Oblique Intention: Foresight in Criminal Law

Introduction

Oblique intention describes cases where a defendant does not aim for a particular outcome but foresees it as a virtual certainty of their actions. It is often raised in murder trials where death or serious injury was not the defendant’s purpose, yet was practically bound to happen.

English courts have refined this area through a line of cases, now captured in the Woollin direction. In short: if death or serious injury was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated that, a jury may find intention. This sits between direct intention (aim or purpose) and recklessness (unjustified risk-taking), and it preserves a clear threshold for the most serious crimes.

What You’ll Learn

• The meaning of oblique intention and how it differs from direct intention
• The Woollin direction: “virtual certainty” and appreciation by the defendant
• Why Matthews and Alleyne treats Woollin as a rule of evidence
• How Hyam, Moloney and Nedrick led to the modern position
• How motive and purpose interact with intention, including Steane and Re A
• Where “specific intent” terminology fits in, and what Heard says about it
• Practical steps for structuring jury directions and exam answers

Core Concepts

Direct intention and oblique intention

• Direct intention:
  • The defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about the result (for murder, to kill or cause grievous bodily harm).
• Oblique intention:
  • The defendant foresees the result (e.g., death or serious injury) as a virtual certainty of their conduct, even though it is not their aim.

Key statute:

• Criminal Justice Act 1967, s 8: juries may decide intention from all the evidence, not by rigid rules, and may draw proper inferences from conduct and circumstances.

Contrast with recklessness:

• Recklessness concerns taking an unjustified risk (e.g., R v G). Oblique intention requires foresight of virtual certainty, which is significantly higher than a mere risk or strong probability.

The Woollin direction

Woollin sets the modern test for oblique intention in murder:

• The jury may find intention if:
  1. Death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions, and
  2. The defendant appreciated that this was the case.

Points to remember:

• “Virtual certainty” is a very high threshold. “Highly probable” or “very likely” is not enough.
• The direction is used where direct intention is not established but the facts suggest a result was bound to occur.

Evidence not law

• R v Matthews and Alleyne clarifies that the Woollin direction is a rule of evidence, not a substantive legal definition of intention.
• Juries are entitled to find intention if the Woollin limbs are met, but they are not compelled to do so.

Motive, purpose and “double effect”

• Motive (why someone acted) is different from intention (what result they intended).
• R v Steane shows that some offences focus on purpose as part of intention. Knowing consequences are likely does not always prove the required purpose.
• In Re A (conjoined twins), the court accepted that doctors foresaw one twin’s death as inevitable but allowed the operation under necessity, drawing attention to the difference between aiming to kill and aiming to save a life where death is foreseen.

Key Examples or Case Studies

Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55

• Context: Petrol put through a letterbox; two people died.
• Key point: The court treated foresight of a “high probability” as sufficient for murder at the time, which later created uncertainty.
• Outcome today: “High probability” is not enough; the bar is now “virtual certainty.”

R v Moloney [1985] AC 905

• Context: Shooting after a drunken challenge.
• Key point: Early guidance on foresight risked confusing probability with intention.
• Outcome today: Superseded by Nedrick/Woollin; do not rely on Moloney for the test.

R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025

• Context: Paraffin through a letterbox; child died.
• Key point: Set the “virtual certainty” approach: a jury may infer intention if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and appreciated as such by the defendant.
• Significance: Provided the structure later endorsed in Woollin.

R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82

• Context: Defendant threw his baby onto a hard surface; the child died.
• Key point: Restated the Nedrick model and used “find” rather than “infer”.
• Significance: The leading case for the modern direction on oblique intention.

R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192

• Context: Threw a non-swimmer from a bridge into a deep river; victim drowned.
• Key point: Confirmed that Woollin sets an evidential route; juries may find intention but are not required to.
• Practical effect: Judges should direct juries accordingly; avoid treating Woollin as a definition of intention.

R v Steane [1947] KB 997

• Context: Broadcasts for the enemy under duress.
• Key point: The court focused on whether assisting the enemy was truly the defendant’s purpose.
• Takeaway: Knowing consequences does not always prove the specific purpose required by an offence.

Re A (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000] 4 All ER 961

• Context: Surgery would save one twin and inevitably cause the other’s death.
• Key point: The court allowed the operation, discussing intention, purpose, and necessity.
• Takeaway: A clear example for separating foreseen consequences from purpose, and for recognising necessity as a justification.

R v Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125

• Context: Sexual assault and intoxication.
• Key point: Clarified how the label “specific intent” is used; it is not always about an ulterior purpose.
• Takeaway: Murder is treated as a “specific intent” offence for intoxication rules, but it does not require an ulterior intent. Oblique intention can suffice.

Practical Applications

• Structure your analysis

  1. Identify the result element (e.g., death or grievous bodily harm).
  2. Ask if there was direct intention (aim or purpose).
  3. If not, consider oblique intention: was death or serious injury a virtual certainty, and did the defendant appreciate that?
  4. Apply Matthews and Alleyne: if yes, the jury may find intention; they are not obliged to.

• Build accurate jury directions

  • Avoid phrases like “highly likely” or “very probable”.
  • Use Woollin language: “virtual certainty” and “appreciated by the defendant”.
  • Remind the jury this is evidence from which they may find intention.

• Distinguish from recklessness

  • Recklessness is about taking an unjustified risk; it is not enough for murder.
  • If oblique intention is not established, consider unlawful act or gross negligence manslaughter where appropriate.

• Handle motive and purpose carefully

  • Motive is not the same as intention. A good motive does not negate intention, and a bad motive does not prove it.
  • Where an offence requires a specific purpose (as in Steane), address that element separately.

• Intoxication and “specific intent”

  • For murder (a “specific intent” offence), intoxication may prevent formation of intention if it genuinely stopped the defendant from intending the result.
  • Heard warns against treating “specific intent” as a neat category tied only to ulterior intent; apply the correct rule for the offence.

• Examiner and practitioner tips

  • Cite s 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967: intention may be inferred from all the evidence.
  • Pin down the defendant’s appreciation of consequences using statements, conduct, and circumstances.
  • Be clear on timeline: Hyam and Moloney are historically important but the operative test is Nedrick as refined in Woollin, read with Matthews and Alleyne.

Summary Checklist

• Can you explain direct vs oblique intention in a sentence each?
• Have you set out the Woollin limbs: virtual certainty and appreciation?
• Have you told the jury they may find intention, not that they must?
• Have you avoided “high probability” and similar wording?
• Have you separated motive/purpose issues (Steane, Re A) from intention?
• Have you signposted s 8 CJA 1967 and the evidential approach?
• Have you ruled out recklessness as a route to murder?
• Have you addressed intoxication correctly for “specific intent” offences?

Quick Reference