ABSTRACT
The traditional transferred intent doctrine creates dogmatic problems when there is a result with the intended and the unintended victim. The fact that the law ties the transfer of defence to the transfer of intent produces another counterintuitive consequence. The Law Commission had created the following provision that any defence on which a person might have relied on a charge of an offence in relation to a person or thing within his contemplation is open to him on a charge of the same offence. Adherents to due process principles will favour fair treatment of the offender, combined with concepts such as harm principle, fair labelling, and the ultima ratio function of criminal law. This matter is primarily the decision of each legal system about whether it uses an impersonality or concretisation approach in defining intent. The impersonality approach may appear to be a typical lawyer's solution. The same applies to defences such as insanity, involuntary intoxication, diminished responsibility, and provocation.
