When intoxication is raised in relation to specific intent for murder, the correct approach is whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in fact possessed the requisite specific intent, not whether the accused was incapable of forming that intent. Framing the question in terms of 'incapacity' erroneously suggests the accused must be shown to be incapable and tends to reverse the onus of proof. In circumstantial cases involving multiple possible explanations for injuries, the prosecution must negate each rational hypothesis consistent with innocence, and rejection of one extreme hypothesis does not establish the requisite intent.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.