Intoxication

Criminal Law
Voluntary intoxication and Involuntary
Intoxication
…
Voluntary intoxication, where When a person is forced to
a defendant has willfully consume an intoxicant against
consumed drink or drugs his / her will, the person is said
before committing an offence
to be involuntarily intoxicated.

Not a defense Mitigates the offence

(not a complete
defence)
Involuntarily intoxication
Involuntary Intoxication – section 78 PC
Ex.1 Involuntary Intoxication – Defense
Viresh and a group of friends are playing cards at his house.
They’re drinking beer; Viresh is drinking soda.
One of his friends slipped a pill containing a drug into Viresh’s soda and
his friends physically forced and attacked Viresh to drink the soda.
Viresh had no other option than drinking it. He soon goes into a
complete blankness.
Not knowing what he’s doing, he begins to attack his friends and killed
all of them.
 Test of INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
---

Involuntary
Totally deprived the
intoxication Degree of mental capacity from
intoxication understanding physical
nature of his act
Physical force

complete blankness
Defense of Intoxication
Example 2 - Lesser degree of intoxication
Viresh and a group of friends are playing cards at his house.
They’re drinking beer; Viresh is drinking soda.
One of his friends slipped a pill containing a drug into Viresh’s soda and his
friends physically forced and attacked Viresh to drink the soda.
Viresh had no other option than drinking it.
However he was able to understand physical nature of his act.
While the others are still playing, he gets up and goes to Raja’s room.
Before getting drunk, Viresh had an intention to steal Raj’a laptop computer.
Takes the computer from Raja’s room – Raja does not know about this!!
Lesser degree of intoxication (GL Pg.184)
•.
Involuntary Not total deprivation
intoxication Degree of of the mental capacity
intoxication from understanding
physical nature of his
act
Physical force Lesser degree
He was able to understand
No complete
exoneration
Involuntary intoxication

If the level of intoxication is very high – If the level of intoxication is not very high – Df, is capable
Defense of knowing the nature of his act – no defense.

Intoxication Mental
capacity
 Nature of the force

Mere force? Or physical force?

Perryman (1916)
• The defendant was 16 years old when he committed the crime, but at
that age seems to have been addicted to the habit of drinking and
gambling.
• The evidence is that he drank some at another place before entering
the hotel, and engaged him in a game of "twenty-one," and during
the progress of the game, the hotel owner gave him a number of
drinks of whisky, and played with him at this game until he won all the
money the defendant had on his person.
• Suddenly, DF killed a person – and committed robbery.
Perryman (1916)
Defendant argued that -
The hotel owner gave defendant the whisky that made him drunk, for
the purpose of robbing him in the gambling game, his intoxication was
involuntary.

It was held that the act was voluntary – there was no physical
compulsion – presented re drinking.
Involuntary = Physical compulsion
Sopher case
A boy whose father supplied the liquor and compelled him to drink it.
The plea of involuntary intoxication was rejected.

Compulsion was not one of physical compulsion

Burrows case
Deceased gave a lift in a car – to a college student (under 18)
He started to abuse and compelled him to drink alcohol otherwise he
put down him in a desert.
Accused (a college student) involuntarily drunk – and killed the
deceased.
Court of law accepted that – accused was under criminal force/
threading. However it was decided that – it is not a involuntary
intoxication.
Unless such force is physical force. – See pg.185
 In Sri Lanka
A person is taking – intoxicant (drug/alcohol):
upon a command (not under physical compulsion);

If the accused is able to prove that – “any reasonable man in

the position of accused could be failed to overcome
the pressure”;
Then it shall be presumed as involuntary intoxication.
(See pg.186)
Sri Lanka
The position is same in Sri Lanka –
Where an accused get intoxicant intentionally, without any
force/compulsion – in an emergency situation;
That disturbed the mental order of the accused:

-Is involuntary.
(See pg.186)
Sri Lanka
If the accused is drug addicted; - voluntary intoxication
(element of willfulness and deliberation are clear)
Marikkar
The accused – taken a large quantity of opium
Killed his two little sisters (aged 10 and 11 years)

The court held that ‘intoxication caused by opium and all other forms
of drugs … was within the scope of the provision in our law’
Involuntary intoxication – accused must prove
(pg.187)
If the level of intoxication is very high – If the level of intoxication is not very high – Df, is capable
Defense of knowing the nature of his act – no defense.

Intoxication Mental Destroy the

capacity understanding
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary Intoxication – SL
A person takes intoxicant on his free will.

In Sri Lanka we treat the accused who voluntarily consumes any

intoxicants as – a sober man/ as a normal person.
(Voluntary intoxicated = Sound mind )

- Pg.189
Voluntary Intoxication
S.79
Accused had Knowledge, Intention

Accused committed an offence under the influence of intoxication

He will be treated as a normal person (as he committed the offence

with intention)

Unless he proves the element of ‘involuntary intoxication’

Ex.1
Raja had developed an envy with Rani – he goes to a bar and consumes
excessive alcohol with the intention to kill Rani.
And he kills Rani.
1. Knowledge and intention – is clear and existed;
2. Committing an offence under the influence of intoxication
3. However, Raja should be treated as an ordinary person – who is
having sound mind.
4. Unless he proves ‘the intoxicant have administered by someone’
Ex.2
Mathu, after a (heavy drinks) night party with his friends, returns to his
house; while passing a street he noticed a girl is continuously shouting
at him, so he decided shut her mouth with cloth.
Next day morning police officers –arrest Mathu and alleging that he
had committed an offence of murder.

-Whether the accused, in this situation, will be charged for murder? Or

Culpable homicide?
Voluntary Intoxication – and Mens rea
. - If MR existed before intoxication - is not
excusable.
Specific intend
crimes - Penal code requires specific criminal intention –
defense is permitted.

Voluntary - No total excuse => converted to basic intend

Intoxication crime

Knowledge is sufficient to impute

Basic intend
criminal liability – no defense
crime
permitted
Examples
Specific intent –
‘Murder’ – specific intention of killing – must be existed

Basic intent- (lesser degree offenses)

‘Culpable homicide’ – knowledge that his act is very harm – and going
to take the life of other.

Rape – specific intent

Sexual assault - basic intent – (lesser degree offences)
R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
The appellant consumed some home made wine. This had a much greater
effect on him than anticipated. He committed sexual assaults and claimed he
was so drunk he did not know what he was doing. He argued that he had not
voluntarily placed himself in that condition as the wine was much stronger
than he realised.
Held:
The intoxication was still voluntary even though he had not realised the
strength of it.
The crime of sexual assault is one of basic intent (requires only knowledge-
not specific intention) and therefore the appellant was unable to rely on
defense of intoxication.
When was the intent formed?
A-G for N. Ireland v. Gallagher [1963] AC 349
Accused was a habitual drinker and He was frequently violent towards
his wife.
He had spent some time in a mental hospital for which he blamed his
wife. On his release he went out and brought a bottle of whiskey and a
knife.
He intended to use the knife to kill his wife and brought the whiskey as
he knew that this would make him aggressive to the extent that he
would be able to kill. He drank the whiskey and killed his wife with the
knife and a hammer.
A-G for N. Ireland v. Gallagher …
House of lords …
It was decided that if a person forms the intention to kill and drinks in
order to give himself courage, he can not then rely on defense of
intoxication to demonstrate that he did not have the mens rea.

Forming MR ---- drinking --- committing an offence = no defense

Drinking ----- without MR---- committing an offence = defense

 Idea of construction
.
Specific intent Basic intent

Court of law, DO NOT

construe (assume) the Court of law “CONSTRUE THE
criminal intention CRIMINAL INTENTION”
1. Insanity induced by voluntary intoxication
. Unable to
Voluntary
Intoxication understand
physical
nature of his Insanity
act

In Sri Lanka – admits insanity induced by intoxication as a defense only

if the intoxicant was administered to the accused without his
knowledge or against his will.
But under EL – the position is different
Baines case –
Holliday case –
held that the same protection was available in the case of ‘temporary
insanity’ brought by excessive drinking.
Voluntary Intoxication and Criminal Intention