Research On Alcohol Licensing, Intoxication, And Criminal Responsibility

14 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🔹 I. INTRODUCTION

1. Alcohol Licensing

Alcohol licensing laws regulate the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol. The aim is to prevent public disorder, protect public health, and ensure responsible trade.
In India and other common law jurisdictions (like the UK), alcohol licensing is governed by specific statutes, such as:

India: State Excise Acts (since alcohol is a State subject under Entry 8 of the State List, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution).

UK: Licensing Act 2003.

USA: Federal and State laws under the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) system.

Licensing laws restrict:

Who can sell alcohol (licensed premises).

When and how alcohol can be sold (hours and conditions).

Responsibility of license holders (e.g., not selling to intoxicated persons or minors).

🔹 II. INTOXICATION AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. General Principle

Intoxication can affect a person’s mental state, but it is not usually a defence unless it prevents the formation of mens rea (guilty mind).
The law distinguishes between:

Voluntary Intoxication – Self-induced, generally no defence.

Involuntary Intoxication – Forced or unknowing intoxication, may be a valid defence.

2. Legal Basis (in India)

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 85: Acts done by a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act due to involuntary intoxication.

Section 86: When intoxication is voluntary, the accused is liable as if he had the knowledge that a sober person would have had.

Thus, only involuntary intoxication provides a potential defence.

🔹 III. KEY CASE LAWS (Detailed Analysis)

Let’s now discuss six important cases that shape the law on alcohol, intoxication, and criminal responsibility.

⚖️ Case 1: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920) AC 479

Jurisdiction: House of Lords (UK)

Facts:
Beard, while intoxicated, raped a girl and suffocated her, resulting in her death. He was charged with murder.

Issue:
Can intoxication be used to reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter?

Held:
The House of Lords held:

Intoxication is no defence unless it prevents the formation of specific intent necessary for the crime.

Murder requires intent to kill or cause grievous harm; if intoxication prevents such intent, the charge can be reduced to manslaughter.

Principle:
Voluntary intoxication can only negate specific intent, not general intent crimes.
Beard’s case remains a cornerstone of the law on intoxication.

⚖️ Case 2: Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956 SCR 363)

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India

Facts:
The accused, a retired military officer, while drunk at a wedding, shot a young boy. He claimed intoxication prevented him from forming intent.

Issue:
Whether voluntary drunkenness can excuse the crime of murder?

Held:
The Court ruled:

Under Section 86 IPC, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal liability.

The degree of intoxication must be so severe that the accused was incapable of forming intent.

Here, the accused’s conduct (aiming and firing a gun) showed intent.

Principle:
Voluntary drunkenness is not a defence; only incapacity to form mens rea could reduce liability.

⚖️ Case 3: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski (1977) AC 443

Jurisdiction: House of Lords (UK)

Facts:
Majewski, after taking drugs and alcohol, attacked several people and police officers. He claimed intoxication prevented him from forming intent.

Issue:
Does voluntary intoxication provide a defence to crimes of basic intent?

Held:
The House of Lords held:

Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent (like assault).

It may be relevant only to crimes of specific intent (like murder or theft).

Principle:
There is a distinction between:

Basic intent crimes – intoxication no defence.

Specific intent crimes – intoxication may negate intent.

This case cemented the “Majewski rule.”

⚖️ Case 4: R v. Lipman (1970) 1 QB 152

Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal (UK)

Facts:
Lipman and his girlfriend took LSD. Under hallucination, he thought he was attacked by snakes and suffocated her.

Issue:
Was intoxication a defence to manslaughter?

Held:

Although he lacked intent to kill, he voluntarily took LSD.

He was convicted of manslaughter, since his intoxication was self-induced.

Principle:
Voluntary intoxication may reduce specific intent crimes to basic intent crimes but does not absolve responsibility altogether.

⚖️ Case 5: R v. Kingston (1994) 3 All ER 353

Jurisdiction: House of Lords (UK)

Facts:
Kingston, with paedophilic tendencies, was drugged by another person and then committed indecent acts on a boy while unconscious. He argued that he was involuntarily intoxicated.

Issue:
Is a person criminally liable if they form intent while involuntarily intoxicated?

Held:

Even though intoxication was involuntary, once intent is formed, liability follows.

The drugging did not destroy his intent.

Principle:
Involuntary intoxication is a defence only if it prevents the formation of mens rea.
If intent exists, intoxication (even involuntary) does not excuse the act.

⚖️ Case 6: R v. Hardie (1985) 1 WLR 64

Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal (UK)

Facts:
Hardie took Valium tablets (a sedative, not a dangerous drug) and set fire to a cupboard. He claimed he didn’t know Valium could make him aggressive.

Issue:
Was he criminally liable for arson?

Held:

Since the drug was taken for a calming effect, not to cause intoxication, it was involuntary intoxication.

He was acquitted.

Principle:
Taking a non-dangerous drug with no expectation of intoxication can be a valid defence.

🔹 IV. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES

Type of Intoxication	Criminal Responsibility	Case Reference
Voluntary (Alcohol/Drugs)	No defence for basic intent crimes	DPP v. Majewski
Voluntary (Severe)	May reduce specific intent crimes	DPP v. Beard
Involuntary (Drugged unknowingly)	Defence if no mens rea formed	R v. Hardie, R v. Kingston
Indian Law (IPC §§85–86)	Involuntary = defence; Voluntary = liable	Basdev v. State of Pepsu