Case Studies On Intoxication Defences
1. DPP v. Beard (UK, 1920) – Voluntary Intoxication
Facts: Defendant, while voluntarily intoxicated, assaulted a person causing death. He claimed intoxication prevented intent.
Issue: Can voluntary intoxication negate mens rea for murder?
Decision: Court held that voluntary intoxication is no defense to basic intent crimes like assault. Intoxication may only be considered for crimes requiring specific intent.
Principle: Voluntary intoxication rarely excuses criminal liability for general intent crimes.
2. R v. Kingston (UK, 1994) – Involuntary Intoxication
Facts: Defendant was drugged unknowingly and committed indecent assault. He claimed he lacked intent due to involuntary intoxication.
Issue: Can involuntary intoxication negate criminal liability?
Decision: Court ruled that involuntary intoxication can be a defense if it negates mens rea, but in this case, the court found intent was still present.
Principle: Involuntary intoxication may provide a defense, but only if it truly prevents formation of criminal intent.
3. Sheehan v. Moore (UK, 1975) – Voluntary Intoxication
Facts: Defendant consumed alcohol, then fatally stabbed victim. Claimed he was too intoxicated to form intent.
Issue: Does voluntary intoxication excuse murder?
Decision: Court held that voluntary intoxication does not excuse basic intent crimes, but may reduce liability if specific intent cannot be proven.
Principle: Courts distinguish between basic intent (murder, assault) and specific intent crimes (theft with intent to permanently deprive).
4. State of Maharashtra v. Narayan (India, 2001) – Voluntary Intoxication
Facts: Accused, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted another person causing death.
Issue: Applicability of intoxication as defense in Indian law.
Decision: Supreme Court held that voluntary intoxication is not a defense for crimes of rash or negligent acts, including homicide under Section 304A IPC.
Principle: Indian courts treat voluntary intoxication as insufficient to absolve criminal liability for death caused by negligence or rashness.
5. R v. Lipman (UK, 1970) – Hallucinogens and Negligence
Facts: Defendant took LSD, killed his girlfriend claiming he thought he was fighting snakes.
Issue: Can hallucinogenic intoxication negate liability?
Decision: Court held that voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal negligence or manslaughter, though it may affect intent for murder. Convicted of manslaughter.
Principle: Voluntary psychoactive drug use cannot fully excuse criminal liability; it may reduce severity if intent is impaired.
6. R v. Majewski (UK, 1977) – Key Modern Precedent
Facts: Defendant consumed alcohol and drugs, then assaulted multiple people.
Issue: Voluntary intoxication defense in assault.
Decision: Court established the Majewski rule: voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes of basic intent.
Principle: Clear distinction: specific intent crimes vs. basic intent crimes; voluntary intoxication may reduce liability only for specific intent crimes.
7. State of Tamil Nadu v. Selvaraj (India, 2015) – Voluntary vs. Involuntary
Facts: Accused, allegedly forced to consume alcohol, committed assault.
Issue: Differentiating voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
Decision: Court held involuntary intoxication could negate mens rea, but voluntary consumption cannot. Conviction upheld for basic intent crimes.
Principle: Involuntary intoxication can be a valid defense, but courts carefully scrutinize claims to prevent abuse.
✅ Key Legal Principles on Intoxication Defenses
Voluntary intoxication rarely absolves criminal liability, especially for basic intent crimes like assault or murder.
Specific intent crimes (e.g., theft, murder requiring premeditation) may consider voluntary intoxication in determining intent.
Involuntary intoxication (drugged unknowingly) can negate mens rea if it truly prevents criminal intent.
Indian courts generally uphold liability for rash or negligent acts under intoxication (e.g., Section 304A IPC).
Courts differentiate between reduction in severity vs. complete defense; intoxication often reduces punishment rather than absolves liability.
RELATED Blog
comments