Principles of liability: oblique intention

1. Principles of Liability: Oblique Intent
Kirsty Allison © 2019

2. DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
A man intends the natural and probable
consequences of his actions.

3. Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
The legislatives guidance on oblique intention is
that it is a subjective test

4. Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55
He intends his actions when he forsees the
consequence to be a highly probable result of
those actions
R

5. Walker and Hayles (1980) 90 Cr. App.
R. 226
Foresight of consequence may be evidence of
intent if the D foresaw death as virtually certain
or a highly probable consequence of his
actions.

6. Mohan [1985] 2 All ER 193
Knowledge of likely consequence may amount
to intention

7. Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025
Foresight of consequence as a natural
consequence is evidence of intention

8. Hancock and Shankland [1986] 2 WLR
257
The greater the probability of consequence the
more likely it is that the consequence was
forseen. If it was forseen the more likely it was
that it was intended.

9. Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025
The jury are not allowed to infer intention unless the
consequence is a virtual certainty of the Defendants actions and
the Defendant was appreciated that it was.

10. Woolin [1999] 1 A.C. 82
Confirmed the decision in Nederick. Changed
the word ‘infer’ to ‘find’ resulting in confusion.

11. Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical
Separation) [2000] 4 All ER 961
Saw the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) clearly
stating the decision in Woolin laying down the
principle that foresight of consequence is intention.

12. Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr
App R 30
Confirmed Nederick/Woolin direction as a rule
of evidence.