Crime CXXXVI– Intoxication XII
With
regards to specific intent crimes for example murder, self-intoxication is a
defense or more rightly a mitigating factor, but one the court will allow only
sparingly i.e. the court, or the jury will look into all the evidence that is
available to them as per s.8 of the Criminal Justice Act (1967) and decide if
the defense should be made available to the defendant or if the court will
accept the defendant’s plea and the reluctance of the court is primarily
because of public interest or public policy reasons in that an innocent member
of the public should be protected from the drunken mistake of another
especially given the fact that the defendant got drunk on his own accord.
It
might be different if the defendant had been forced to drink or someone had
pointed a gun to the defendant’s head and made him drink or if his drink was
spiked but unless that was the case, the courts will show some reluctance in
allowing the defense.
In
R v Stubbs (1989) the defendant who was drunk at the time got into a fight with
the victim, and stabbed the victim, causing grievous bodily harm, and was
charged under s.18 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861). The mens rea to
obtain a s18 conviction is intention to cause grievous bodily harm but because
the defendant at the time lacked the mens rea or the intention to cause
grievous bodily harm, the court accepted a section 20 plea (which is a lesser
offence) the mens rea for which is either intention or recklessness.
The
lack of the required mens rea caused by drunkenness would be a defense to a
section 18 charge, but it has to be extreme, i.e. the defendant was so
intoxicated that he had lost all ability to reason.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment