Morton v The Queen

In *Morton v The Queen*, the applicant appealed against a conviction for murder. The appeal concerned the directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the applicant's statements to police, the applicant's perception of the weapon used, and the applicant's level of intoxication.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury to determine what they accepted or did not accept of the applicant's statements to police, and whether the judge's directions concerning the prosecution's onus to prove the applicant's intent to cause at least serious harm were appropriate. Further, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury to determine whether the applicant believed he was striking the victim with an axe or a stick, and whether the judge erred in inviting the jury to determine the applicant's level of intoxication and its effect on his intent.

The court reasoned that the direction regarding the applicant's statements was unexceptional. Regarding the weapon, the relevant consideration was whether the applicant intended to cause serious harm, irrespective of whether he believed he was using an axe or a stick. The court found that the trial judge's directions on intoxication adequately conveyed that the prosecution bore the onus to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the applicant possessed the necessary intent despite his intoxication. The judge's questions to the jury, such as "Was he so intoxicated that he could not and did not or, put more properly, that the Crown hasn’t established that he did form an intent to cause her death or cause her serious harm?", were considered to have satisfied this crucial requirement.

The appeal was dismissed.