In R v. Woollin, how was the concept of oblique intention introduced?

In R v. Woollin, the concept of oblique intention was clarified through the court's approach to inferring intent from near certainty. This case involved a defendant who threw his son onto a hard surface, resulting in the child’s death. The court addressed the difference between direct intention and oblique intention, ultimately establishing that a person can be deemed to have intended a result if it was a virtually certain outcome of their actions, even if they did not desire that result.

The court emphasized that while a person may not have the direct intention to cause a particular harm, if the harm is a foreseeable consequence of their actions, then intent can be inferred. This standard of "near certainty" became a pivotal point in understanding oblique intention. The ruling highlighted that where a defendant engages in conduct leading to a result that they know is a virtually certain consequence, that knowledge can establish their intention for the purposes of liability.

This distinction is critical in assessing liability for crimes where the intent must be determined based on the circumstances of the act rather than an explicit desire to bring about the result. Thus, option D accurately reflects how the concept of oblique intention was introduced in this case, linking the defendant's knowledge of the consequences of their actions to an inference of