Where an accused is charged with offences arising from injuries to both a direct target and a third-party intervener, the trial judge must direct the jury on the fundamental difference in foreseeability between the two, and failure to do so constitutes a miscarriage of justice. A direction on s 23(1)(a) need not use the precise Benchbook formulation provided the summing-up in context makes clear the prosecution must exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility the act occurred independently of the accused's will.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.