Scribd
Upload
158 views8 pages

Intoxication

This document discusses the legal definitions and implications of voluntary and involuntary intoxication. It provides several key points: - Involuntary intoxication is a valid defense if the defendant was unaware they consumed an intoxicating substance. Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal liability unless it prevents forming the intent needed for the crime. - Case law examples show drunkenness can be a defense for voluntary intoxication depending on the amount consumed and whether it actually impaired the defendant's state of mind. - Intoxication includes substances like liquor, drugs, or other medicines that impair awareness, not just alcohol. It can potentially produce states like insanity or confusion preventing knowledge of one's actions. - The director of

Uploaded by

Kajan Satkunanathan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
158 views8 pages

Intoxication

This document discusses the legal definitions and implications of voluntary and involuntary intoxication. It provides several key points: - Involuntary intoxication is a valid defense if the defendant was unaware they consumed an intoxicating substance. Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal liability unless it prevents forming the intent needed for the crime. - Case law examples show drunkenness can be a defense for voluntary intoxication depending on the amount consumed and whether it actually impaired the defendant's state of mind. - Intoxication includes substances like liquor, drugs, or other medicines that impair awareness, not just alcohol. It can potentially produce states like insanity or confusion preventing knowledge of one's actions. - The director of

Uploaded by

Kajan Satkunanathan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

intoxication

Intoxication generally divided by two sections that as


voluntary and in voluntary
Section 78 describe as in voluntary intoxication it
says
nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who at the time of doing it ,it is by reason of
intoxication incapable of knowing the nature of the
act or that he is doing what is either wrong or
contrary to law
Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was
administrated to him with out his knowledge or
against his will

section 79 describes as voluntary intoxication

where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular


knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of
intoxication shall be liable to deal with as if he had the same
knowledge as he would had if he had not been intoxicated
Unless the thing which intoxicated him was administrated to him with
out knowledge or against will
Drunknees as a defense in voluntary intoxication that depend on the
amount of liquor
that as show in the following enumerated cases
queen v selladorai
r v mc bride
r v wood ward
marikkar.ma v queen
director of public procecutions v beard

queen v seladorai

in this case the man causing the death of a person by

rash driving the mere fact is that the accused was


smelling of liquor at the time of accident the district court
was charged the person the accused v was appeal
That judge said-I must tend to show that the amount of
drink taken was such as would adversely affect the driver
or alternatively that the driver was in fact adversely
affected I would set aside the conviction and acquit the
accused
in here that the evidence as to the drink taken by driven
to be admissible
the same has happen in england r v bride in this case
evidence that a driver faced a charge of dangerous
driving
this case is sited by two following case -r v wood ward

in this case of marikkar .ma v queen the appellant was

convicted of the murder of his 2 little sisters they have


10 and 11 years old
The defendant appeal in the examination period the
question ask for a doctor the drugs may arise a insanity
the doctor says there is some times
But the judge says the medical evidence is what ever
said it is unsound mind he came to the question of
intoxication that the incident happen the person first
shoot and tell I have shot then said have I shoot it
indicates certain doubt that as he was not full of
awareness or not to do anything
According to this question the judge come for an
conclusion that he was so drunk not merely drunk so
drunk as to have been incapable of forming a murderous
intention so only reduce the the offence that far no more
Accused charged with culpable homicide

We have some points in that case that is a mere intoxication and

say with out knowing the law denied to accept it but in the so
drink the law may consider
There is no reason to escape sough intoxication that as
preparation for murder assault
In commonly we think that intoxication mean liquor but in a view
of law intoxication states as liquor, abin ,ganja or any other
medicine
The intoxication related with confusional insanity intoxication is
protect
That as the person while intoxication not know any thing or not
knowing his position
Example the man attack any man and think him a doll
the nurse think a child as a fire wood and burn

director of public proceution v beard

In the same type of previous case happen in

england the prisoner had been raped and murder


of a girl and on her sruggling to escape from him
And it furtherance of the act of a rape he placed
his hand over her mouth and his thumb on her
throat there by causing her death by suffocation
The defense was that in circumstances proved
the verdict be manslaughter and not murder
On the ground that there was no intention on the
part of the prisoner to cause the girl death and
that he was in a drunken condition he was
incapable of knowing that he was doing likely to
inflict serious injury

In voluntary intoxication is the defendant does not know they


have taken drink or drug and they do not know they have
been intoxicated
There are the situation either take defense for involuntary
intoxication or not
In this case r v kingston describes not to have take a defense
for involuntary intoxication
In this case x blackmail kingston and to do that x lays drug in
to kingston cofee . X then took the defendant into the bed
room the 15 years old boy was there he was also have drug
Kingston form very sexual act of the boy and subsequently
charged with indecent assault
Kingston claim no regulation of the assault drink could been
lays by drugs by x who photograph the incident assault even
if it is intoxicated with out knowing by the 3 rd party the
mens rea already form so kingston couldnt get a defence of
involuntary intoxication

There is a right of defense in involuntary

intoxication
This describes as in a case of r v hardie
Hardie case surrounded on valium valium is a
soporific drug soporofic drug is one sent you to
sleep
In hardie a defendant start fire in french flat
after taking valium
The judge says he did not have the mens rea if
the effect of drug merely suffocate the
voluntary consumbtion of a dangerous drug
might be conclusion of recklness this is not that
case it s no a dangerous drug he is not quilty

You might also like