R v Thomas Michael Nutt

An intoxication direction should ordinarily be given where sufficient evidence of drunkenness, viewed realistically and holistically, could raise an issue about formation of the specific intent required for the offence. The accused’s chosen defence does not determine that question. If the threshold is met, the jury should be directed that an intoxicated intent remains an intent, but must still be sure that the requisite intent was formed. Failure to give, or to use the precise form of, such a direction does not automatically make a conviction unsafe. Safety depends on the evidence, issues and other directions. The threshold was not met in this case. Alternatively, the conviction remained safe.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to unlawful-act manslaughter but was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Bradford on 10 August 2022 of murdering his wife. The sole issue at trial was whether he intended to kill or cause really serious harm. After the jury asked about alcohol and drugs, the trial judge addressed intoxication and directed that self-induced intoxication was no defence to murder. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal, arguing that a full intoxication direction was required and that the judge had misdirected the jury. The central issues were whether intoxication was a live issue as to specific intent and, if so, whether the conviction was unsafe.

Leave to appeal was refused.

1. The applicant’s complaints about the conduct of his defence and his further substantive assertions did not provide a properly arguable basis for an appeal against conviction.
2. In Aidid v The Queen [2021] EWCA Crim 581, the court identified the threshold for an intoxication direction. The question is whether there is evidence of drunkenness which, viewed realistically and holistically, might raise an issue whether the accused could form the specific intent required. The nature of the defence advanced is not itself determinative. If the threshold is met, the jury should ordinarily be told that a drunken intent remains an intent, while being required to decide whether it is sure that the requisite intent was formed.
3. The threshold was not met. The applicant had given repeated and detailed accounts, had not suggested that intoxication materially impaired his mental capacity or recollection, and on his own account had not been drinking when the killing occurred. The CCTV and other evidence of his behaviour were also relevant. Neither side had sought an intoxication direction before the jury raised its question.
4. Alternatively, even if a full direction had been required, failure to give it, or to use the precise formula, would not necessarily make the verdict unsafe. The assessment depended on all the evidence, the issues and the other directions. The case against the applicant was powerful and no other part of the trial directions or summing-up was criticised. It was therefore not properly arguable that the conviction was unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. [2023] EWCA Crim 1575.
• Single Judge: The initial application for leave to appeal was refused.
• Crown Court at Bradford: A jury convicted the applicant of murder on 10 August 2022. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years, less 289 days spent on remand.