Refer to different aspects of intention –direct/oblique, but being clear it remains a subjectiveconcept
Foresight of intention is not the same as intention but may beused in conjunction with S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 –evidence from which intention may be inferred by the jury –Moloney; Nedrick; Woollin
Make relevant reference to the special &partial defence of provocation in the context ofreform
Refer to the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Refer to the Law Commission’s 2005 Consultation Paper
Moloney: Foresight of consequences isevidence of intention
Hancock & Shankland; The greater the probability of aconsequence the more likely it is that theconsequence was foreseen. If the consequence wasforeseen the more likely it was that it was intended.
Nedrick; Jury not entitled to infer the necessaryintention unless death or serious injury was a virtualcertainty and the D appreciated this.
Walker & Hayles; Reading Lord Scarman’s speech in Hancock and [reading]Nedrick we are not persuaded that it is only when death is a virtualcertainty that the jury can infer intention to kill. Providing the dividing linebetween intention and recklessness is never blurred, and provided it ismade clear ... that it is a question for the jury to infer from the degree ofprobability in the particular case whether the defendant intended to kill, wewould not regard the use of the words "very high degree of probability" asa misdirection.’
Woollin: The jury, should be directed that they are entitled to find the necessaryintention if they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty - barring some unforeseen intervention - as a result of the defendant’s actions, and that the defendant realised such was the case, but should be reminded that thedecision is one for them on a consideration of all the evidence. Murder is a crime of specific intent. If for any reason (including self-induced intoxication) the killer does not form the necessary intent, he cannot be convicted of murder