The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing the trial judge made several errors in his charge to the jury regarding the requisite intent for murder.
The appellant admitted to causing the victim's death but claimed he lacked the intent for murder due to intoxication and the minimal force used.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to link the 'common sense inference' of intent to the specific manner of death (venal asphyxiation) and by improperly applying the thin skull principle to the issue of intent rather than causation.
These errors compromised the defence, rendering the trial unfair.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.
