oblique intention

Oblique intention arises when a person intends to do one act, which leads to a second unintended consequence.
Example: If a person intends to shoot down a plane to make a protest, the intended act is the protest itself; however, a consequence of that protest is the death of people on the plane.
A person is said to obliquely intend the second unintended consequence if:
- It is virtually certain to result from the intended action.
- The defendant was aware of this certainty when performing the first action.

Wollen (1998): Established the rule that the second consequence must be a virtual certainty and that the defendant must be aware of this.

Case Summary: The defendant set fire to a house without warning the occupants, resulting in two deaths.
The defendant claimed her intent was merely to scare the occupants and had no intention to injure anyone.
Outcome: Convicted of murder; appealed based on a claim of lacking necessary mens rea (mental state).
Ruling by House of Lords: A deliberate act done with the knowledge that death was a highly probable outcome amounts to intention.

Charge: Defendants were accused of shooting with intent to commit murder.
Court Ruling:
- Evidence showing that a reasonable person would foresee death as a probable consequence and that the defendant was reckless about causing death constitutes evidence of intent.
- This ruling is problematic as it confuses the line between manslaughter and murder since recklessness typically leads to manslaughter only.

Following Cases:
- R v Moloney (1985):
- Clarified the criteria for identifying intent.
- R v Hancock and Shankland (1986):
- Further addressed issues of foresight and its relation to intent.
- R v Nedrick (1986):
- Reinforced that the jury should determine if death or serious harm was a virtually certain result of the defendant’s acts.
- If so, consider whether the defendant knew of this certainty.
- Simple foresight of high probability was deemed insufficient to establish intent.

Endorsed findings from Nedrick and Moloney with a significant alteration:
- Found that determining intention should rely on foresight of consequence as a virtual certainty, rather than merely inferring it from the defendant's actions, to avoid confusion for the jury.

Court of Appeal Ruling: Emphasized that if death or serious harm was a virtually certain result of the defendant's actions:
- The jury could find intent but were not obligated to do so.

Legal Clarity Issues: The law on oblique intention in Ireland remains ambiguous.
In Douglas & Hayes, it was noted that a deliberate act along with reckless disregard for whether such an act could lead to death or serious harm may lead to an inference of intent.
Recent Case: Clifford v DPP (2008):
- Appellant charged with a public order offence requiring proof of intent to provoke a breach of peace or recklessness regarding such a breach.
- Court Finding: Where the unintended consequence is highly probable, this may (but not necessarily must) lead to an inference of intent.