INTOXICATION

RADHA PANDEY
ROLL NO :-80
3RD SEMESTER
 Rationale

Intoxication can impair a person’s judgment,

perception and self control.
It can cause persons to commit crimes which they
would never have considered committing while
sober.
 INTRODUCTION

Intoxication, which denotes to the condition that

exists when person consumes alcohol or other
drugs to the extent that his or her mental or
physical abilities are significantly affected,
has been recognized as defence in criminal law under
some circumstances. It is not recognized as defence
where the intoxication is an element of crime like
driving whilst intoxicated.
The defence is permitted in some instances in which
there is evidence that intoxication created a state of
mind similar to that of an insane person and
thus the defendant could not form the requite intent
required for that crime
 Intoxication as Legal Defence

Intoxication can be divided as -

Involuntary Intoxication and
Voluntary Intoxication
 Involuntary Intoxication

Involuntary Intoxication, which occurs when

someone slips drug into the food or drink, a seldom-
used defence, is appropriate when defendant has
acted under intoxication that was compelled or
coerced by another or when a defendant become
intoxicated as the result of deception, mistake, or
ignorance.
 A defendant can become intoxicated by voluntarily
taking drink or drugs. Evidence of intoxication
negativing mens rea is a defence only to crimes
requiring specific intent. But note that:
 Cases

 A distinction has to be drawn between being drunk and

being intoxicated. A drunken man may commit acts whilst
under the influence of drink or drugs that he would
never commit whilst sober, but he will not be able to
raise the defence of intoxication if he is nevertheless, still
capable of forming the necessary mens rea for the crime
with which he is charged. It was stressed in R v Sheehan
and Moore [1975] 1 WLR 739, that "a drunken
intent is nevertheless an intent".
An intoxicated defendant is one who is shown to
have been incapable of forming the necessary mens
rea due to the effect of drink or drugs. In R v
Stubbs (1989) 88 Cr App R 53, it was stated that
the intoxication needed to be "very extreme".
 "DUTCH COURAGE" INTOXICATION

Where a person deliberately gets himself intoxicated

to give himself "Dutch Courage" to commit a crime,
his intoxication will not be a defence even to crimes
that can only be committed with a specific intention.
He is to be "blamed" to the same extent as the person
who intentionally commits a crime - Attorney-
General for N. Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC
349
 Attorney-General for N. Ireland v Gallagher
[1963] AC 349

 The defendant decided to kill his wife. He bought a knife

and a bottle of whisky which he drank to give himself
"Dutch Courage". Then he killed her with the knife. He
claimed that he was so drunk that he did not know what he
was doing, or possibly even that the drink had brought on a
latent psychopathic state so that he was insane at the time
of the killing. The House of Lords held that intoxication
could not be a defence.
 Nepalese Law

No law

THANKYOU
ALL OF YOU