Intention – Direct and Indirect/Oblique

Introduction

• Intention is the highest level of mens rea and represents the clearest form of fault.
• Distinguished from recklessness or negligence because it shows a deliberate choice to bring about the prohibited result.
• The concept has been developed largely through case law rather than statute.
• Two recognised forms:
  • Direct intention (where consequence is the defendant’s aim or purpose).
  • Indirect/oblique intention (where consequence is not the defendant’s main aim but is a virtually certain result of their actions).

Direct Intention

• Definition: Where the defendant acts with the specific aim, purpose, or desire to bring about the prohibited consequence.
• Authority:
  • R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 – Court of Appeal defined intention as “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the prohibited consequence, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not.”
• Example:
  • A aims a gun at B and shoots to kill. Death = direct intention.
  • A plants a bomb under a car to ensure B dies — direct intention.
• Characteristics:
  • Clear, straightforward.
  • Easy for jury to identify: D’s conduct reveals purpose.
  • Often proven by inference from behaviour.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Indirect/Oblique Intention

• Definition: Where the defendant’s main purpose is something else, but the consequence is a virtually certain result of their conduct, and they appreciate this fact.
• Problem: Jury must decide whether to treat foresight of consequences as evidence of intention or as intention itself.
• Development through case law:

Key Cases in Development

1. Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55
   • D set fire to house intending to frighten rival; two children died.
   • HL held foresight of serious risk of death/serious injury could amount to intention.
   • Criticised: blurred line between intention and recklessness.
2. R v Moloney [1985] AC 905
   • D shot stepfather during drunken challenge.
   • HL: foresight of probable consequence is only evidence of intention, not intention itself.
   • Jury should not be directed that foresight = intention.
3. R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] AC 455
   • Miners pushed concrete block off bridge to stop another miner working; driver killed.
   • HL stressed the greater the probability of consequence, the more likely intention can be inferred.
   • Probability = strong evidence but not definition.
4. R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025
   • D set fire to woman’s house, child died.
   • CA gave model direction: Jury not entitled to infer intention unless:
     1. Death/serious harm was a virtual certainty (objective test).
     2. D appreciated this (subjective test).
5. R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82
   • D threw baby onto hard surface in frustration; baby died.
   • HL confirmed Nedrick test but substituted word “find” for “infer”:
     • Jury may find intention if death/serious harm was a virtual certainty and D appreciated that.
   • Current law: Woollin direction.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Woollin Direction Explained

• Jury may find intention if:
  1. Result was a virtual certainty (beyond high probability) from D’s act.
  2. D knew it was virtually certain.
• Effect: Foresight of virtual certainty = evidence from which intention can be found.
• But foresight is not the same as intention itself — preserves distinction.

Comparing Direct and Oblique Intention

Policy Considerations

• Moral blameworthiness: Intention indicates highest fault; justifies most serious liability (e.g., murder).
• Clarity for juries: Direct intention easy to apply; oblique intention harder, risk of confusion.
• Criticisms:
  • Woollin direction still leaves uncertainty: does foresight = intention, or just evidence of it?
  • Academic debate (e.g., Smith and Hogan vs. Glanville Williams) about whether foresight should be equated with intention.
  • Some argue law overextends murder liability to those who did not truly “intend” death (e.g., Woollin himself).

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Reform Proposals

• Law Commission Draft Criminal Code (1989):
  • Defined intention as purpose, or foresight of consequence as virtually certain.
  • Would codify Woollin test, providing clarity.
• Law Commission Report 2006 (Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide):
  • Recommended clearer statutory definition of intention.
  • But not implemented; law remains case-law based.

Exam Application Tips

• Always start with Mohan for direct intention.
• For oblique intention:
  • Trace development: Hyam → Moloney → Hancock → Nedrick → Woollin.
  • Apply Woollin test clearly:
    • Was death/serious harm a virtual certainty?
    • Did D appreciate this?
    • If yes, jury may find intention.
• Problem questions:
  • If A plants bomb to frighten but knows death virtually certain → Woollin oblique intention.
  • If A sets fire hoping to scare, thinking unlikely to kill → probably recklessness, not intention.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Conclusion

• Direct intention = clearest form: consequence is D’s aim or purpose (Mohan).
• Oblique intention = consequence not aimed at, but virtually certain and foreseen (Woollin).
• Law has struggled to define oblique intention consistently; Woollin test is current standard but criticised for lack of precision.
• Intention remains central to liability for serious crimes like murder, reflecting highest fault and moral blameworthiness.