R v Woollin [1999]

1. Facts:

• The defendant (Woollin) became frustrated with his baby’s crying.

• He threw the baby across the room, resulting in the baby's death.

2. Outcome:

• The House of Lords substituted Woollin's murder conviction with manslaughter.

• The court confirmed the use of the "virtual certainty" test established in R v Nedrick (1986).

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Virtual Certainty Test:

◦ The court confirmed that the jury should consider whether the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certainty of his actions.

◦ This test helps differentiate between intention and recklessness by focusing on the degree of foresight the defendant had.

• Misdirection and Criticism:

◦ The trial judge directed the jury to consider if the defendant realised that his actions created a "substantial risk" of harm, which was criticised as a misdirection.

◦ This direction blurred the lines between intention and recklessness, which are distinct mental states in criminal law.

• Language Change:

◦ The court changed the language from "infer" intention to "find" the necessary intention.

◦ This shift indicates that the jury should not merely infer intention from the circumstances but should find it based on the evidence presented.

• Jury Discretion:

◦ The ruling allows the jury "moral elbow room" to decide whether the defendant acted with the necessary intent, even if the evidence suggests it.

◦ This approach gives juries flexibility to consider the broader context of the defendant's actions and intentions.

• Rule of Evidence vs. Definition of Intention:

◦ The Woollin decision establishes a rule of evidence rather than a strict definition of intention.

◦ If the evidence suggests that the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certainty, the jury may find intention but is not obliged to do so.

◦ This approach maintains the presumption of innocence by requiring sufficient evidence to establish intent beyond reasonable doubt.

• Alan Norrie's Commentary:

◦ Alan Norrie: Woollin remains the "last word" on indirect intention to murder.

◦ The case provides a clear framework for understanding indirect intention, balancing legal precision with the need for jury discretion.