For a murder conviction, it must be proved that the defendant intended to cause serious injury or death. The jury is directed to consider the 'normal meaning' of intent. What do you think that means and do you think it is a suitable direction for a jury?

Normally, there would be more context for a question like this; for instance, you may have been given a murder case to read beforehand which would likely provoke some questions about the meaning of intention. Feel free to use the case for examples or to bring your own hypothetical examples in if you can think of any. Often, your tutor will listen to your ideas and then change the facts of the case slightly and see whether your theory holds up with those changes. You can defend your idea, or you can concede that you did not think of that scenario and develop your answer further.For this question, you should first consider what the 'normal meaning' of intention might be. You might say that if someone intends something, then that something is their aim or purpose. Then you need to think about scenarios where this definition doesn't quite make sense. What if Candace pushes David off a bridge to show off to her friends, knowing that he cannot swim, and he then drowns in the river? She did not wish him to die, but she knew it was a likely outcome. Or what if Ben, in a fit of rage, throws his crying child at a cot, believing the baby will be bruised at worst, but instead the baby hits the ground and dies? Ben is devastated by his child's death. It was certainly not his aim or purpose, and yet the risk of death or serious injury is glaringly obvious. Could this be said to be intention?You can use these examples to illustrate why that direction might not be sufficiently clear for a jury, since they would be unsure whether to convict or not. It may seem obvious, but explain why this is a bad thing - for example, it means that different verdicts would occur for similar cases, which is unfair on defendants, and it infringes the 'fair warning' principle, which means that people should generally understand what crimes are so they can avoid committing them.You might then be given (or might already have been given) a quote from a seminal case on intention, e.g. Woollin. You would have to figure out what this means and say whether you agree with it or not. This case stated that a jury should be 'entitled to find' intention where the defendant foresaw that death or serious injury was a virtually certain consequence of their action. You would have to explain this gives juries some flexibility so that in particularly heinous cases they may find that sufficient for intention and in others they may not. You would then say whether you think that is a good or a bad thing and explain why.Make sure to speak all your thoughts out loud. Often, the tutor may be looking for you to raise a lot of questions and isn't all that concerned if you aren't actually able to answer them. All the same, it is best to form an opinion as you go and then defend it to show that you are capable of weighing the positives and negatives. Whatever side you pick, the tutor will likely play devil's advocate and poke holes in your theory, whether they agree with you or not. This is why even successful candidates usually come out of the interview feeling like an idiot (or at least I certainly did!), but the more they challenge you, the more opportunities you have to show your ability to hold your own in a theoretical debate. At some point, your line of argument may become untenable, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that. Better to show that you can recognise flaws in your argument than to keep repeating those flaws and hope your interviewer doesn't notice!