Crime CXXXIII – Intoxication IX
A
year later in R v Hardie (1984) another exception was added, in that, while
intoxication was not a defense to basic intent crimes, it is a mitigating
factor when the drugs that were taken were merely soporific or sedative. It is
to some extent possible to say that intoxication is not a defense to basic
intent crimes or crimes where the mens rea to obtain a conviction are
negligence and recklessness only with regards to offences that are committed
after the defendant had been drinking or drinking excessively or after taking
illegal drugs or dangerous drugs.
In
R v Hardie (1984) the defendant who was distressed after he’d broken up with
his partner and was asked to leave the flat, took some out of date valium
tablets that were not prescribed to him, and returned later and set fire to a
wardrobe in his bedroom. The defendant was charged under s.1(2) and s.1(3) of
the Criminal Damage Act (1971) which reads as follows: -
s.1(2)
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether
belonging to himself or another—
(a)intending
to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property
would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b)intending
by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless
as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;
shall
be guilty of an offence
s.1(3)
An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by
fire shall be charged as arson.
According
to the defendant while he remembered being in the room he could not remember
setting fire to the wardrobe. The trial judge directed the jury to the effect
that voluntary intoxication is not a defense when it comes to basic intent
crimes (crimes that resulted from the defendant’s negligence or recklessness) -
the mens rea to obtain a conviction under s.1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act
(1971) is either intention or recklessness. The jury convicted accordingly, and
the defendant appealed.
The
conviction was quashed and it was held that if the drug “is merely soporific or
sedative” then “the taking of it, even in some excessive quantity, cannot in
the ordinary way raise a conclusive presumption against the admission of proof
of intoxication for the purpose of disproving mens rea in ordinary
crimes, such as would be the case with alcoholic intoxication or incapacity or
automatism resulting from the self-administration of dangerous drugs”.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment