Intoxication is a defense available to criminal defendants on the basis that, because of the intoxication, the defendant did not understand the nature of his or her actions or know what he or she was doing.
The intoxication defense in Uganda applies in very limited circumstances and
typically depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and
what level of intent is required by the criminal charge.
It is provided for under section 12 of the PCA where it can only apply as a defense in the following ways;
- The person did not know that the act or omission was wrong or did not know what he or she was doing.
- The state of intoxication was caused without the person's consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person.
- The person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.
- Mens rea is negatived by drunkenness.
The person seeking to rely on the defence of intoxication has to show that he was incapable of forming the intent as a result of drunkenness.
In R v Moore (1852) 3 C & K 319
A woman charged with attempted suicide had jumped into a well when “so drunk as not to know what she was about”.
She was acquitted since on the facts it was apparent that her drunkenness negatived any intention to kill herself or to do herself any grievous harm.
Also Read: Self Defence
DPP v Beard
[1920] AC 479
The appellant while intoxicated raped a 13-year-old girl and put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. She died of suffocation.
It was held that Drunkenness was no defense unless it could be established that the accused at the time of committing rape was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent to commit it.
See the case of R v Pordage [1975] Crim LR 575.
A drunken man may commit acts while under the influence of drink or drugs that he would never commit while sober, but he will not be able to raise the defense of intoxication if he is nevertheless, still capable of forming the necessary mens rea for the crime with which he is charged.
Also Read: Irresistible Impulse Defence
The following
factors ought to be considered when determining whether or not the defense of
intoxication is available to the accused.
Self-induced/voluntary
intoxication
Establishing a defense of self-induced/voluntary
intoxication is complex. Under prevailing legal standards, voluntary
intoxication is an applicable defense only for certain crimes, and, even in
those circumstances, the court is far less likely to accept the defense when the accused
brought the intoxication upon himself or
herself.
According to DPP v Beard [1920], AC 479 intoxication can be raised as a defense to crimes of specific intent, but not to crimes of basic intent.
Black’s Law dictionary 8th edition defines specific intent crime to mean the intent to accomplish the precise criminal act that one is later charged with. Courts have defined specific intent as the subjective desire or knowledge that the prohibited result will occur.
See the case of People v. Owens, 131 Mich. App. 76, 345 N.W.2d 904 [1983].
A specific intent crime is one wherein theory the mens rea goes beyond the Actus Reus, in the sense that the defendant has some ulterior purpose in mind.
In simple terms this means that the accused does not have to have foreseen any consequence, or harm, beyond that laid down in the definition of the Actus Reus.
Also Read: Diminished Responsibility Defence
Examples include; assault, manslaughter, rape, etc.
Basically, specific intent offenses require an intention to bring about a particular consequence and Basic intent offenses are offences that require an intention to merely perform an act.
Intoxication, whether self-induced or not, maybe taken into consideration when determining whether the accused had the relevant
specific intent to bring about the consequence.
In the instant case, The defendant had been convicted of various counts alleging actual bodily harm, and assaults upon police officers.
The offences had occurred after the defendant had consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs.
The trial judge had directed the jury that self-induced intoxication was not available as a defense to these basic intent crimes.
The defendant was
convicted and appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal and the House of
Lords.
Lord Elwyn-Jones
LC concluded that the cases he had considered establish that drunkenness
can be a defense where the accused was at the time of the offense so drunk as
to be incapable of forming the specific intent necessary for such crimes.
He then said that before and since Beard's case, judges had taken the view that self-induced intoxication however gross and even if it produced a condition akin to automatism, cannot excuse crimes of basic intent.
With crimes of basic intent, as his Lordship explained, the "fault" element is supplied by the defendant's recklessness in becoming intoxicated, this recklessness being substituted for the mens rea that the prosecution would otherwise have to prove.
Also Read: Infanticide
Dutch courage
This refers to a situation where a person deliberately gets himself intoxicated to give himself "Dutch Courage" to commit a crime.
Intoxication, in this case, will not be a defense even to crimes that can only be committed with a specific intention.
The accused is to be "blamed" to the same extent as the a person who intentionally commits a crime.
Attorney-General for N. Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
The defendant killed his wife and prior to the killing, he bought a knife and a bottle of whisky which he drank to give himself "Dutch Courage". Then he killed her with the knife.
The defendant argued that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing, or possibly that he was insane at the time of the killing.
The House
of Lords held that intoxication could not be a defense in either case as the intent had been clearly formed, albeit before the killing took place. Lord
Denning stated:
"If a man, whilst sane and sober, form an intention to kill and makes preparation for it, knowing it is a wrong thing to do, and then gets himself drunk so as to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing, and whilst drunk carries out his intention, he cannot rely on his self-induced drunkenness as a defense to a charge of murder, not even reducing it to manslaughter. He cannot say that he got himself into such a stupid state that he was incapable of intent to kill. So also when he is a psychopath, he cannot by drinking rely on his self-induced defect of reason as a defense of insanity. The wickedness of his mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him, coupled with the act which he intended to do and did do."
Read Next: Self-defence