R v George

The appellant was convicted of the murders of an elderly couple in their home. The basis for the conviction was that the appellant caused their deaths while committing an act in furtherance of an unlawful purpose, namely burglary, with intent to steal or sexually assault. The appellant argued that there were others in the vicinity with significant criminal histories for burglary and violence, and that there were rational inferences open on the evidence that had not been excluded, such as the possibility that the appellant may have entered the deceased's house after another person had committed the murders without any assistance from him. The appellant also argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an attempted burglary, and that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication to the offence of murder.

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. The court also had to decide whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the attempted burglary and whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication to murder under s 302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that there was ample evidence that the appellant was intoxicated on the night the deceased were killed, and that intention to cause a specific result is an element of an offence. Therefore, intoxication may be regarded for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an intention in fact existed. The court held that the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication to murder under s 302(1)(b) when the unlawful purpose was particularised as an offence including, as an element, an intent to cause a specific result. However, the court held that the guilty verdicts did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice, and dismissed the appeal against convictions.