Outline the meaning of both of the following terms: oblique (indirect) intention and transferred malice.

Oblique Intention= In Woollin (1999) the court of appeal stated that oblique intention can exist where (a) the consequence of an action was virtually certain and (b) the defendant recognised that it was virtually certain. This then enables the jury to (c) find that this recognition amounts of intention. This evidential rule was used in the case Matthews and Alleyne (2003) where the defendant threw the victim off a bridge; the jury found that since the defendant knew the victim could not swim, and death was therefore a virtual certainty, the defendant had oblique intent to murder.Transferred malice occurs where the mens rea of a crime is transferred to the injury of an unintended victim. This was demonstrated in the case of Latimer (1890) where the defendant lashed out at X with a belt, but missed and injured the woman talking to X. The defendant still had the necessary mens rea and actus reus for the crime, despite not intending to injure the actual victim. Transferred malice requires the actus reus of the intended crime to be the same as the actual actus reus. For example in Pembliton, the defendant threw a stone at X, but missed and hit a window, so transferred malice could not be shown.