Topic 5.1 Flashcards
What is intoxication?
Intoxication is defined as the intake of alcohol, but includes the intake, injection or inhalation of drugs
What are the general defences of intoxication?
- Those that exclude mens rea and
- Those that exclude unlawfulness
What is the actio libera in causa in intoxication?
The actio libera in causa is the situation where X intends to commit a crime but does not have the courage to do so and takes to drink in order to gain the necessary courage.
Certain forms of mental illness, such as delirium tremens, may be the result of chronic consumption of alcohol.
What does intoxication in practise negate?
Intoxication can only negate fault (in appropriate circumstances like in [Chretien], [Maarohanye]) as the State will usually be able to prove antecedent liability and further because s1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act will result in prosecution
When will voluntariness be negated by intoxication?
Voluntariness will be negated if the accused is so drunk that he is lying on the floor performing random muscular movements (dead drunk) [Chretien]. This is subject to the State proving antecedent liability.
When does intoxication negate the accused in dead drunkness?
If the State can prove that there was a time before the “dead drunk” automatic state where the accused’s conduct (AR) and blameworthiness (MR) coincided, then voluntariness will be established. AR = continuing to drink MR =with the knowledge (foresight, real possibility and recklessness) that you would lose self-control. Culpa – RM does not drink till he lies on the floor performing random muscular Movements. Also subject to s1(1) Criminal Law Amend
When does intoxication negate the accused in moderate drunkness?
Intoxication may, in appropriate circumstances, affect/negate the accused’s ability to foresee a real possibility of harm which they may have if they were sober [Chretien, Maarohanye] when slightly or moderately drunkenness. This will negate dolus eventualis (which has foresight as one of its elements) but it will not negate negligence, culpa,(because a reasonable man does not drink to a point that it affects his ability to rationally foresee. Thus, intoxication may negate fault in the form of dolus but not culpa, usually, a drunk accused is at least negligent if they fail the culpa test
What are the facts in S v Johnson?
In S v Johnson case, an intoxicated accused was arrested and put into a cell with an elderly man who was sleeping. The accused beat this man to death with a metal bucket.
What was help in S v Johnson?
It was held that he was not guilty of murder as he lacked specific intent due to his intoxication. The Court readily accepted that the accused was so intoxicated that it is unlikely that he was voluntary, but on policy grounds, the Court was prepared to find guilt at least in the form of negligence
What are the facts in Chretien case?
In the Chretien case, the accused consumed a lot of alcohol at a party. During the party, there had been some discontent. In a drunken rage, the accused purported to speed off in his car. He drove into a group of guests who were standing outside where the party had been, killing 1 and injuring 5. He was charged with 1 count of murder and 5 counts of attempted murder. His defence was that in his intoxicated state, he believed that the people would move out of the way.
What was held in Chretien case?
It was held that it was reasonably possible that he didn’t foresee the possibility of the people not moving out of the way. The court held that even common assault requires intention to assault and such intention is lacking due to the intoxication. Because of this, there can be no conviction. The court comes to the conclusion that intoxication based on the facts did not affect the accused’s capacity but that it affected his formulation of an intent.
How does Chertien case over rule Johnson case?
In Chertien case, the court overrules Johnson and held that intoxication can in fact negate intention, voluntariness and capacity and can be a complete defence. This will depend on various states or degrees of intoxication and will affect fault. Where one is dead drunk, lawfulness, voluntariness, intention and capacity may be negated (there can be no question of liability)
What is the two fold enquiry of capcity in Chertien?
Chertien states that capacity is a 2-fold enquiry where either or both of these enquiries.
- Could the accused appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and
- Could he act in accordance with that appreciation
What does s1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act state?
s1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1988, states you are not guilty because you were intoxicated constitutes a crime. If you are intoxicated, by a substance that has the effect of impairing your capacity and try to use lack of capacity because while in that state of intoxication you commit a crime, you shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the penalty (except the death penalty) which may be imposed in respect of the commission of that act.
What is involuntary intoxication?
By “involuntary intoxication” means intoxication brought about without X’s conscious and free intervention.
What are the facts in S v Hartyani?
In S v Hartyani case, A was charged with drunken driving and he voluntarily consumed 4 bottles of beer and then some coffee. Unbeknownst to him, the coffee was laced with a substantial amount of brandy.
What was held in S v Hartyani?
It was held that it was reasonably possible that A did not know that there was brandy in the coffee and that he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and act accordingly. He was held to have no criminal capacity and acquitted.
