A trial judge is not required to direct the jury to exclude 'lesser alternative intents' beyond reasonable doubt where no such lesser intent is raised as a reasonable hypothesis by the evidence, the accused's statements to police, or defence counsel. Directions that guilt must be the only rational inference and that any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence requires acquittal are adequate in such circumstances. A suggestion that the accused acted in self-defence does not constitute a 'lesser alternative intent' and directing on it would impermissibly confuse motivation with specific intent.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.