question about mens rea criminal law

The test on indirect intention given in Woolin is a development, or a mere restatement, of the test which was outlined in Nedrick. You should consider direct intention first, and then move onto consider indirect intention if relevant.

The test for indirect intention is twofold: (a) the result in question was a virtual certainty; (b) the defendant foresaw it as such.

The example given in the literature is this: D decides to blow up a plane by placing a bomb in the luggage holding area of the plane. The plane explodes killing everyone on board. At trial, the D states that he did not intend to kill anyone — his aim, or purpose, in blowing up the plane was simply to send a message that the particular plane company is one which is corrupt and uses excessive amounts of fossil fuels.

In such an instance, the jury may well find that the D did not actually intend to kill anyone. Subjectively speaking, D may not have intended to kill anyone. However, under the test of indirect intention it will be possible to find that the D had the necessary intention. Applying the test set out above, (a) placing a bomb on a plane and blowing it up leads to a virtual certainty that those individuals on board at the time would die; (b) the defendant foresaw this virtual certainty. In such an instance, D will be guilty of murder.

Therefore, answering your question, indirect intention is not simply what D aimed for: it will almost always be the case that indirect intention picks up a result that the D did not actually aim or intend, because if they did aim or intend then the test of direct intention would be fulfilled.

Hope this makes sense!