← The hardest concepts in United Kingdom law
In one breath
In English criminal law a person intends a result if it is their aim or purpose, and a jury may also find intention where the result was a virtual certainty of the defendant’s actions and the defendant realised that. This second route is oblique intention, and it is evidence from which a jury may find intention, not a definition of it.
The picture
The scar and the surgeon
A surgeon operates to cure a patient. The cure is the aim. The scar is not wanted, but the surgeon knows it is certain to follow. Ordinary speech hesitates over whether the surgeon “intends” the scar, which is just the hesitation the law has to settle. A third thing, a one-in-a-hundred risk of infection, is something the surgeon foresees but is plainly not intending.
Criminal law sorts consequences the same way. Direct intention is aim or purpose. Oblique intention covers the scar: a consequence that was not the aim, but that the defendant knew was virtually certain to follow. Mere foresight of a risk, even a high one, is not intention, though it may amount to recklessness for other offences. The model direction in R v Woollin says that the jury is not entitled to find intention unless they are sure the result was a virtual certainty, barring some unforeseen intervention, as a result of the defendant’s actions, and that the defendant appreciated this.
Where the picture stops working
The surgeon’s scar is lawful and welcome, whereas the criminal cases involve harms the defendant does not want, which is why they turn on intention and not on motive. A mercy killer intends death. The Court of Appeal has also said that the direction is needed only in rare cases and that it states a condition for the jury to find intention, not a rule that they must (Matthews and Alleyne). Scots law approaches the mental element of murder differently, through an intent to kill or wicked recklessness.
How it really works
- 1Identify the result that the prosecution must prove was intended, such as death or really serious injury in murder.
- 2Ask first about direct intention: was it the defendant’s aim or purpose to bring about the result? If so, intention is established.
- 3If direct intention is doubtful and the case is one where the jury needs more guidance, consider oblique intention. Was the result a virtual certainty as a consequence of the defendant’s actions, barring some unforeseen intervention?
- 4Ask whether the defendant appreciated that it was a virtual certainty.
- 5If both answers are yes, the jury may find intention but are not compelled to (Woollin; Matthews and Alleyne). If the defendant only foresaw the result as probable or possible, that is not intention (Hancock and Shankland).
Why people get it wrong
- Equating intention with desire or motive. A person can intend a consequence they regret.
- Treating foresight of a high probability as intention. Probability is not enough; the standard is virtual certainty.
- Reading the Woollin direction as a definition. It limits what a jury may find, and the decision on intention remains a question of fact for the jury.
- Confusing oblique intention with recklessness. Recklessness is the conscious taking of an unjustified risk, and a risk is not a virtual certainty.
A worked example
The facts are invented
Sol sets fire to a shop at night to claim the insurance money, knowing that a worker, Teo, sleeps in a back room with no other exit. Sol’s aim is the money, not Teo’s death. Teo dies in the fire.
Sol did not have direct intention to kill. But if the jury are sure that death or serious harm was a virtual certainty, barring some unforeseen intervention such as Teo waking and escaping, and that Sol appreciated that, they may find that he intended it, which is enough for murder. Suppose Sol believed Teo was away and thought it merely possible that someone might be inside. Then the jury could not find intention, and the case would turn on recklessness and the other offences.
Try it
A defendant, meaning only to frighten a man, throws him from a high window, knowing that death is virtually certain but hoping the man will live. Which statement about the defendant’s intention is closest to the law?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- R v Moloney, [1985] AC 905
- R v Hancock and Shankland, [1986] AC 455
- R v Nedrick, [1986] 1 WLR 1025
- R v Woollin, [1999] 1 AC 82
- R v Matthews and Alleyne, [2003] EWCA Crim 192
Where to go next
Courses
Case briefs
Dictionary
More hard concepts in United Kingdom law
- Accessory liability and joint enterprise (Criminal law)
- Unjust enrichment (Restitution)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. The United Kingdom has three legal systems: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. These pages mostly describe the law of England and Wales and say where Scots law differs when it clearly does; Northern Ireland law is often similar to English law but is not covered separately. Parliament is sovereign, but the devolved legislatures also make law within their powers. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions; check the primary sources before relying on any rule.