What was the result of the conviction appeal in R v. Woollin regarding indirect intention?

In R v. Woollin, the key aspect of the case revolved around the legal interpretation of indirect intention in the context of homicide. The House of Lords clarified that for a defendant to be found guilty of murder relying on indirect intention, the jury must determine that the consequence of death was a virtual certainty of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such a consequence would occur.

The outcome of the appeal was significant in establishing how courts should interpret the presence of intention, particularly when it comes to indirect forms of intent compared to direct intent. In Woollin's case, the courts found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had a direct intention to kill. Consequently, this led to the conclusion that the conviction for murder was flawed, as it failed to meet the requisite proof of intention, resulting in the conviction being overturned.

This establishes an important legal precedent in distinguishing between different forms of intent, further reinforcing the need for judges and juries to carefully assess the nuances of a defendant's mental state when determining liability in homicide cases.