R v Bowie (No 5)

The appellant, Bowie, was charged with the murder of a fellow prisoner, Williams, during a fight in a maximum security prison. The appellant's defence was that he was suffering from intoxication, which impaired his ability to form the intent required for murder. The Crown opposed the direction to the jury on intoxication and the trial judge declined to give such a direction. Bowie was found guilty of murder. The High Court of Australia allowed an appeal against conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in declining to give an intoxication direction to the jury. The High Court held that there was no evidence to support a finding of voluntary intoxication, and no evidence to support a finding of involuntary intoxication. The High Court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury that intoxication was not available as a defence to murder. The jury should have been directed that intoxication is not a defence to murder unless it is shown that the intoxication was involuntary and resulted in the accused being unable to form the intent required for murder. The jury should have been directed that there was no evidence of involuntary intoxication in this case. The High Court held that the trial judge's failure to give an intoxication direction was a misdirection and that the conviction should be quashed.

The High Court held that the trial judge's failure to give an intoxication direction was a misdirection. The High Court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury that intoxication was not available as a defence to murder unless it was shown that the intoxication was involuntary and resulted in the accused being unable to form the intent required for murder. The High Court held that there was no evidence of involuntary intoxication in this case. The High Court held that the trial judge's failure to give an intoxication direction was a misdirection and that the conviction should be quashed. The High Court held that the trial judge's failure to give an intoxication direction was a misdirection and that the conviction should be quashed. The Court held that the jury should have been directed that there was no evidence of involuntary intoxication in this case.