A leading authority on indirect (oblique) intention in murder. The House of Lords refined and approved the Nedrick direction, holding that a jury may only find intention where death or serious harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated that fact. The decision rejects lower thresholds such as “substantial risk,” thereby narrowing the mens rea for murder. 

Woollin lost his temper and threw his three-month-old son onto a hard surface, fracturing the child’s skull and causing death. At trial, the judge initially used a Nedrick-style “virtual certainty” direction, but later told the jury they could convict if the defendant appreciated there was a substantial risk of causing serious injury. Woollin was convicted of murder and appealed. 

Whether a trial judge’s direction stating that the defendant must have appreciated a “substantial risk” of serious injury was a misdirection that widened the mens rea for murder, and what the correct test for oblique intention should be. 

Appeal allowed. The murder conviction was quashed and substituted with manslaughter. The House of Lords held that the judge’s “substantial risk” direction materially mis-stated the law and impermissibly blurred the line between intention and recklessness. The correct test is the Nedrick “virtual certainty” test, which must be used where foresight of consequences is relied upon. 

A jury is not entitled to find intention for murder unless:

1. Death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions, and

2. The defendant appreciated that this was the case.

This reflects the proper boundary between intention and recklessness. References to a “substantial risk” are erroneous because they lower the mens rea threshold and improperly expand liability for murder.