DS Barker is reviewing a case file concerning Whitfield, who started a fire in an occupied residential building at 03:00. Whitfield claims he did not intend to kill or seriously injure anyone - he wanted to destroy property only. One occupant died from smoke inhalation. DS Barker needs to advise whether there is sufficient evidence of the intent required for murder. Which of the following correctly states when a jury may find oblique intent?
- AThe jury may find intent if death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated that this was the case.
- BThe jury must find intent if a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen death or serious bodily harm as a highly probable consequence.
- CThe jury may find intent if the defendant foresaw death or serious bodily harm as a probable consequence of his actions, even if not virtually certain.
- DThe jury may find intent if death or serious bodily harm was virtually certain, regardless of whether the defendant appreciated that fact.
Show answer and explanation
The test for oblique intent comes from R v Woollin [1998] UKHL 28. The jury is 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 this was the case. Both elements must be satisfied.
- B: Option B wrongly uses an objective "reasonable person" standard and uses "highly probable" rather than virtual certainty. Neither is correct under Woollin.
- C: Option C uses "probable consequence" which is a lower threshold than the virtual certainty required by Woollin.
- D: Option D captures the virtual certainty requirement but omits the second limb - the defendant must also have appreciated that death or serious harm was virtually certain. Without that appreciation there is no oblique intent.