Evidence of intoxication may be relied upon in court as raising reasonable doubt as to the existence of intention, even if the intoxication was self-induced. An essential principle in criminal law is proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution to satisfy this principle will need to show the jury that the person accused acted voluntarily and with the intention required by the charge.
What is important to understand is that many criminal charges do not have an element for intention. For instance, if you have been charged with assault, there is no requirement to prove intention and therefore, intoxication is irrelevant. However, if you were charged with stealing, then intoxication may be considered; this is because the intention to deprive is a consideration in the charge.
Why is Intoxication Relevant?
It is the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of every element to a charge. Many charges in a criminal court setting require intention. However, intoxication can negate intention and it makes it difficult then to prove guilt beyond a reasonable charge.
When applying the issue of intoxication, the argument then becomes one of voluntariness. Voluntariness is a basic requirement in proving criminal responsibility under common law and under the Criminal Code 1899 Act (Qld). In the High Court matter of Ryan v R (1967), Barwick CJ stated where voluntariness is not conceded and the evidence provides a substantial basis for doubting voluntariness, the jury’s attention must be specifically drawn to the necessity of finding voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt (at 217). If the act is found to have been committed involuntarily, and there is no question of insanity, then the accused is entitled to a complete acquittal.
Intoxication in Queensland
In R v Kusu (1980), the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal held that, where a charge does not involve specific intent based on sections 23 or 28 of the Criminal Code 1899 Act (Qld), self-induced intoxication does not give rise to a defence.
Does Intoxication Apply to Violent Crimes?
There is an argument that intoxication could negate voluntariness. Therefore, if you were to self-induce intoxication, leading to automatism, it would not be a defence against assault or manslaughter as recognised in the matter of Quick (1973) at 735.
Free Consultation
If you or someone you know has been charged with a criminal offence, it is our recommendation that you get in touch with Brisbane Criminal Lawyers. Our firm practices exclusively in criminal law and can provide you with honest advice with regards to your legal options. You can expect effective case management and representation in relation to any criminal charge. As we are a firm which specialises in criminal law, we have the know-how to achieving the best available outcomes for our clients.
To organise a free initial consultation and address any immediate concerns, give us a call on 1800 200 357.
Memberships
Reviews and Ratings
