What must the prosecution prove in The People (DPP) v. McBride to maintain the presumption of intention?

In The People (DPP) v. McBride, maintaining the presumption of intention hinges on whether the prosecution has demonstrated that the presumption has not been rebutted. In Irish law, specifically regarding criminal liability, intention is often established through certain presumptions. The presumption of intention means that if the prosecution can establish that the accused committed a specific act that would typically suggest intent (such as causing injury or death), it can be inferred that the accused intended the natural consequences of their actions.

However, this presumption can be challenged or rebutted by the defense. For example, if the accused provides credible evidence to demonstrate a lack of intent—for instance, acting under duress or an honest mistake—then the presumption may be considered rebutted. Therefore, to maintain the presumption of intention, the prosecution must prove that no such rebuttal has occurred, thus ensuring that the presumption stands as an accurate reflection of the accused’s mental state during the commission of the act.

The other options illustrate various aspects of intent but do not directly address the crucial factor of whether the presumption itself has been successfully rebutted.