Crime CXXVI – Intoxication II
In
DPP v Beard (1920) the defendant while he was drunk raped a 13-year-old girl
and put his hands around her throat to stop her from screaming. The victim
suffocated and died as a result. The defendant was charged.
It
was held that voluntary intoxication was never an excuse for criminal
misconduct. A man who commits a crime by his own acts that destroy his will
power or deprive him of the ability to reason is in no better position than a
man who is sober.
However,
on a charge of murder, the jury cannot convict if they cannot establish the
mens rea i.e. the intention to kill or the intention to cause grievous bodily
harm or malice afterthought but can nonetheless convict for manslaughter.
Murder
is a specific intent crime (in most instances the mens rea for a specific
intent crime is codified by statute) and in order to establish murder, the
prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the elements that are required
to obtain a conviction, but that does not mean that the defendant cannot be
charged instead with a basic intent crime where the mens rea is usually
recklessness or negligence or where the defendant has not given any thought to
the consequences of his actions or having given it some thought has dismissed
it.
S.2
(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, while it is more relevant to diminished
responsibility gives a better understanding of the subject. The section reads
as follows: -
Persons
suffering from diminished responsibility.
2. (1) A person (“D”) who kills or is a
party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was
suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which—
(a)
arose from a recognised medical condition,
(b)
substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in
subsection (1A), and
(c)
provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to
the killing.
Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment