The taint of intoxication (original) (raw)

The defence of intoxication within the framework of common law criminal jurisprudence continues to receive extensive criticism. The purpose of this article is not to add to these criticisms per se, many of which have been fully discussed recently in this Journal by Mitchell,’ but instead to consider the effect of the intoxication doctrine upon other criminal law defences. At present, many common law jurisdictions, including England2 and Canada,3 accept a rule which restricts the availability of the defence of self-induced intoxication to so-called specific intent crimes.4 This rule is built on policy and has the effect of convicting intoxicated defendants for crimes of recklessness and basic intent, by ensuring that evidence of intoxication is inadmissible to show lack of mens rea. In short, a plea of self-induced intoxication will often be fatal to the accused and may even be viewed as relieving the prosecution of its normal burden of proving mens rea for the offence. Certainly, on...

Sign up for access to the world's latest research.

checkGet notified about relevant papers

checkSave papers to use in your research

checkJoin the discussion with peers

checkTrack your impact