Ratio Decidendi
Where a defendant did not directly intend a result but the result was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions, and the defendant appreciated that this was so, the jury is entitled to find (but is not required to find) that the defendant had the necessary intention. The word 'find' should be used rather than 'infer', correcting the direction in R v Nedrick [1986].
ਤੱਥ
The defendant, Woollin, lost his temper with his three-month-old son who was crying. He picked the baby up and threw him across the room towards his pram. The baby struck a hard surface, suffered a fractured skull, and died. Woollin was charged with murder. He said he had not intended to kill or cause serious harm to the child but accepted that he had lost his temper and thrown the baby. At trial, the judge directed the jury using a modified Nedrick direction, telling them they could infer intention if they were satisfied that the defendant had appreciated there was a 'substantial risk' of serious harm. Woollin was convicted of murder and appealed.
ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦਾ ਸਾਰ
The House of Lords allowed the appeal and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. Lord Steyn, delivering the leading speech, held that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by using the phrase 'substantial risk' instead of 'virtual certainty'. Their Lordships approved the core of the R v Nedrick [1986] direction but with one modification: the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to 'find' intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated this was the case. The substitution of 'find' for 'infer' was significant, as it left the jury a degree of moral elbow room — they were entitled but not obliged to find intention even where virtual certainty was established.
ਮੁੱਖ ਹਵਾਲੇ
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
— Lord Steyn
"The effect of the critical direction is that a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result."
— Lord Steyn
ਬਾਅਦ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ
Woollin is the current definitive authority on oblique/indirect intention in English criminal law, applied in all subsequent murder cases where direct intent is not established.
Extensively discussed in R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003], where the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Woollin direction is one of evidence from which intention may be found, not a rule of substantive law.
Applied as the standard jury direction on intention in murder cases where the defendant claims they did not directly desire the fatal outcome.