Flash v The Queen

In *Flash v The Queen*, the applicant appealed against a conviction for murder. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had provided adequate directions to the jury regarding the applicant's intoxication and its potential impact on his ability to form the specific intent to cause death or serious harm.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the relevance of the applicant's intoxication to the formation of specific intent were sufficient. Specifically, the court considered whether the jury had been properly instructed on how the evidence of intoxication could negate the proof of specific intent beyond reasonable doubt, and whether these directions adequately related the legal principles to the factual circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Grant CJ, Southwood and Kelly JJ, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court reasoned that while the jury had been told that intoxication could prevent proof of specific intent, they were not adequately informed how this applied to the evidence presented. The trial judge had failed to draw the jury's attention to the evidence of intoxication, explain its potential effects on intent, or direct them that intoxication might make an inference of intent less readily drawable from the nature of the injuries. The court found that the trial judge's directions were insufficient and did not adequately address the critical question of whether the applicant might have inflicted the fatal wound without intending to kill or cause serious harm due to his intoxication.