In a murder appeal, the Court considered whether the trial judge improperly relied on the common sense inference on intent without first assessing all evidence bearing on the accused’s mental state.
The Court held that there was no legal error because the trial judge had reviewed the full evidentiary record relevant to intent, including alcohol consumption and surrounding circumstances, before applying the inference.
The Court also refused fresh psychiatric evidence, finding lack of due diligence and no reasonable possibility that the proposed evidence would have changed the verdict under the Palmer test.
The conviction for second degree murder therefore stood.
