For a defence that a defendant was too drunk to form the necessary intent for murder the intoxication must have been of such a degree that it prevented him from foreseeing or knowing what he would have foreseen or known had he been sober. The test which had to be applied to the application of the proviso to s.44(1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act was whether, if the jury had been properly directed, they would inevitably have come to the same conclusion.

PC (Trin) (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls, Lord Hope, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton)

21/07/1999