15.6. Intention to kill
Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire
to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur. It is distinguished from recklessness
because, on a subjective basis, there is foresight but no desire to produce the
consequences. But the perennial problem has always been the extent to which the court
can impute sufficient desire to convert recklessness into intention. The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts
Looking at this without any legal knowledge...
(IMO) How could Dr Vincent Tabak foresee the consequences of his action.... If the basis of foresight to fully understand the consequences of your action, then a medical knowledge would be needed and understanding the Medical Knowledge of how long a strangulation hold would result in death...? There was no medical evidence produced to back up Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed knowledge of
venous obstruction as described by one of the medical experts.
For Dr Vincent Tabak to understand that holding someone by the throat for up to 20 seconds would result in the death or serious injury of a person, he would have had to have researched such knowledge or have it imparted to him by another medical expert....
There was No evidence from the prosecution to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was clearly knowledgable in this medical field...
And no search history to obtain such knowledge being produced at the trial....
I personally and probably many more of you were quite surprised at the little time it took to cause death... I had no idea... It seemed far too short a time for the result.... (IMO) having no medical knowledge or training I assumed that all the Crime programs I had viewed , imitated, reconstructed actual crimes... And I always saw, strangulation as a slow painful Personal attack that last minutes and not seconds.....
If... as it was intimated, that Dr Vincent Tabak strangulation of Joanna Yeates was sexual, then surely the evidence to support that theory of it being a sexual assault should have been presented at court...
There was NO SOLID EVIDENCE to support this.... No witness's took the stand to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak practiced Strangulation sex... Or was sexually satisfied with the action of Strangling females and gained pleasure in seeing their pain...
The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts
Could someone without this expert medical knowledge foresee that their actions would result in death... If we take it back to The Strangulation Porn that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed t have viewed, which the information of this supposed evidence was NOT brought to trial... Would they know that reinacting such acts would result in death...
Do Strangulation Porn movies come with a disclaimer of "
Do Not Try This At Home.".. I very much doubt it.... And if these movies and a few interaction with Prostitutes, (whom also didn't appear at trial).. constitute Medical Knowledge, then surely all who appear in such films would either have PHD's in said medical profession or would be willing to perform in what ultimateley would be a Snuff movie..
There was No evidence before or after the trial that proved Dr Vincent Tabak watched snuff movies... The titles which were revealed by the media was a series called "Sex And Submission".. which is a legal TV program..
In saying all that... how could the evidence available at trial prove The Prosecutions arguement that a Sexual Encounter, with the purpose to obtain sexual gratification by strangulation had taken place???
Given that s.8 Criminal Justice Act
1967 now entitles a jury to draw reasonable inferences from all the evidence, Justice
Wien in R v Belfon 60said that:
‘Foresight and recklessness are evidence from which intent may be inferred but they
cannot be equated...with intent.’
As for the jury, how could they come to their conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak with his lack of Medical knowledge intentionally tried to cause harm or injury to Joanna Yeates....
How did they evidence presented show intent????? (IMO) it didn't....
Which then brings us to the judge.... how did he manage to sentence Dr Vincent Tabak on evidence that didn't exist???
If the Prosecution didn't provide witness's.. professional or otherwise ..to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had sought a Sexual Encounter culminating in strangulation porn... then how did he manage to give him a 20 year minimum tariff ??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf