It was clearly open to the jury to reject the applicant's testimony as to how the injury came to be inflicted and to disbelieve his claim that he did not intend to kill the deceased. Having so concluded, the question was, could it infer that intention from the evidence it accepted? In my view that was but a short step. That the accused's testimony as to how the death was caused was rejected was a factor that made the drawing of the inference easier. He was the only person with direct knowledge of what in fact had occurred. His evidence revealed an admission of a struggle between him and the deceased in which he had possession of the knife which, to his knowledge, was dangerously sharp and that he put it to her neck and caused the fatal injury. In my opinion, it being conceded that it was open to the jury to conclude that the applicant intentionally cut her throat with the intention of doing her harm, then, having regard to the nature and location of the wound, that there were two penetrations, the evidence that the deceased's head had to be markedly tilted back for the wound to be inflicted and as to the relative positions of the applicant and the deceased for such a wound to be inflicted, it was open to the jury, as a matter of common sense and logic, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the intention to kill. It was open to the jury to conclude that the applicant was aware that very little force was required to cut the throat. He had given an unacceptable explanation as to how and why the cutting of the throat had occurred. He had made statements in the video recorded interview open to the construction that he had deliberately cut her throat. The jury was then entitled to consider whether a person with that knowledge and in that situation would cut the throat without an intention to kill. The fact that no great force was required and the wound was only 1.5cm deep at the deepest point is of little relevance, having regard to the damage that cutting of the throat could inflict. To help it in answering that question the jury had the statements in the video interview relied on as admissions, the admitted lies told by the applicant out of court, the lack of any suggestion by him at any interview and until trial that the deceased had attacked him with the knife, or that she in fact had had the knife in her possession and, that he had taken it from her, or that the injury was caused as she struggled with him to get it back and his evidence as to knowledge of the sharpness of the knife and the danger of putting it to someone's throat. The evidence of the wound was consistent with the knife being drawn across the throat. It also had the fact, which could be seen as uncaring of her condition, that as she lay with her throat cut he took the time to hide the knife and sheath and to put on shorts, despite initially maintaining in the video record that he sat with the deceased from the time she was hurt until the arrival of the police and the ambulance. In the video he had stated that following the injury he had moved the deceased from the kitchen, where he said she must have been for "some time", to the lounge and that he was not sure whether this was before or after he went outside. However, his evidence was that on returning from calling the ambulance and the police he found her standing in the doorway to the loungeroom. A further matter was his evidence, that, after the injury the deceased spoke recognisable words to him, as being entirely inconsistent with the evidence of Dr Margolius, which was not significantly disputed by Dr Collins. It could also be seen to be inconsistent with the evidence of the ambulance officers. If disbelieved it could lead to the inference that the accused was attempting to play down the seriousness of the wound in support of his claim that it was unintentional. All of this was open for consideration together with Dr Margolius' evidence of the nature and extent of the wound, the lacerations, bruising, abrasion and as to the relative position of the deceased and the applicant when the injury was inflicted. In my opinion on all that evidence, and even without the evidence of the bruises, the jury having rejected the applicant's evidence as to what had occurred, it was open to it to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had the intention to kill when, having deliberately put a known razor sharp knife to her throat with the intention of cutting it, he then did so.