Where the only evidence of intoxication is the accused's imprecise self-description of being 'whacked' or 'out of it', contradicted by the accused's own detailed evidence of actions and recollections, the trial judge is not required to direct the jury on intoxication as relevant to intent for murder. The definition of reckless indifference as requiring foresight that the act would 'probably' cause death does not require the Crown to prove knowledge of a 'substantial or real likelihood' as a separate or higher standard.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.