Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)

In R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82, the House of Lords approved the model direction in R v Nedrick, with the word 'find' substituted for 'infer': where the defendant may not have desired the result, 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 held that a direction in terms of 'substantial risk' blurred the line between intention and recklessness, and so between murder and manslaughter, and was a material misdirection. On these facts Darren did not want Mrs Okafor to die, so the judge should have given the virtual certainty direction, leaving the decision to the jury on all the evidence.

Why B is wrong: This is the very direction held to be a material misdirection in Woollin, because it enlarges the mental element of murder.

Why C is wrong: A 'highly probable' test was one of the differing approaches in R v Hyam, which Woollin described as leaving the law in disarray; the required level is virtual certainty.

Why D is wrong: The 'natural consequence' guidelines from R v Moloney were held misleading in R v Hancock and Shankland because they omitted any reference to probability.

Why E is wrong: Woollin rejected the Court of Appeal's view that the Nedrick direction is needed only where the evidence of intent is limited to the defendant's actions and their consequences.