They hide it under the carpet in exactly the manner you describe - by posturing that it is not an issue so simply not dealing with it. It's no good pretending the question reserved is 'whether the court was correct to find that OP did not foresee the possibility of killing' - it isn't*. The Q is 'Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts...'
The state lists many of the court's findings as "accepted facts". Conspicuously absent is the finding that OP clearly did not foresee the possibility of killing. The problem is, the state does not explain why they do not consider this an accepted fact - that is the issue, they don't even deal with it. To make the finding as the court did about OP's subjective intention requires no knowledge of dolus eventualis, you don't even need to have heard of dolus eventualis to make that finding. In this regard, it is legitimate to believe the onus is on the state to show why it is not a finding of fact and once you have that finding, the principles of dolus eventualis are then applied rather than the other way round. The state appear to be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing the point one way or the other definitively, my point is if the state think they are putting the horse before the cart, they should have argued why.
This 'fingers in the ears' tactic is no good, they need to tackle things head on and ward it off now at this stage, it is such an obvious and strong objection that will come like a knockout punch, at least make some defensive gesture.
* That would have been a better question, one couched in terms of the legal principles and evidential approach and burden in determining subjective intention. It is one with precedent too from the Supreme Court that would go in favour of the state. But that isn't the question alas.
