Intoxication often plays a role in criminal cases, but can it be used as a defence? In Western Australia, Section 28 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) sets out when intoxication can and cannot be considered in determining criminal responsibility. While voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence, involuntary intoxication may be a factor in certain cases. Here’s what you need to know.
What is Intoxication Under WA Law?
The Criminal Code does not define intoxication explicitly, but it generally refers to a disordered state of mind caused by alcohol, drugs, or other substances. Section 28 differentiates between voluntary and involuntary intoxication when assessing criminal responsibility.
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Intoxication
Voluntary Intoxication
If you willingly consume alcohol or drugs, you are voluntarily intoxicated. Under Section 28(2), this is not a defence—you remain responsible for your actions, whether for general intent offences (such as assault) or specific intent offences (such as murder). The law does not excuse poor judgment caused by voluntary intoxication.
Involuntary Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication occurs when someone becomes intoxicated without their knowledge or consent—for example, if they are drugged without their awareness. Section 28(1) states that if involuntary intoxication results in a state equivalent to insanity under Section 27, it may be a valid defence. If successful, this could lead to an acquittal.
Intoxication and Specific Intent Offences
Under Section 28(3), intoxication—whether voluntary or involuntary—may be considered when determining whether an accused had the necessary intent for a specific intent offence. However, this does not mean intoxication itself is a defence; rather, it is a factor the court may evaluate.
Specific intent offences are those where the prosecution must prove that the accused intended a particular outcome, rather than just the act itself. Examples include murder, assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and robbery with intent to commit an indictable offence. Unlike general intent offences, these crimes require proof that the accused formed a deliberate intent to achieve a specific result (Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), Section 23A).
If the accused was intoxicated at the time of the offence, the court may assess whether they were capable of forming that intent. If intoxication prevented the accused from forming the necessary intent, they may be convicted of a lesser offence that does not require specific intent. However, intoxication does not eliminate criminal liability—it is simply a factor in assessing the accused’s mental state at the time of the offence.
Intoxication and Insanity
If involuntary intoxication results in a state equivalent to insanity, as outlined in Section 27, the accused may not be held criminally responsible. This means:
- The accused must show they were unable to understand their actions or distinguish right from wrong due to intoxication.
- If proven, the accused may be found not guilty due to unsoundness of mind.
Case Review: R v O’Connor [1980] HCA 17
This case examines the role of self-induced intoxication in determining criminal responsibility, particularly its effect on the formation of intent necessary for criminal liability. The High Court’s decision in R v O’Connor significantly impacted Australian criminal law by establishing that intoxication could be considered when assessing whether an accused had the mental state required to commit a crime, particularly for offences involving specific intent.
Background
- Charge: O’Connor was charged with assaulting a police officer and causing bodily harm.
- Defence Argument: He argued that his intoxication prevented him from forming the intent required to be found guilty of the offences.
- Key Context:
- O’Connor had voluntarily consumed a combination of alcohol and drugs before the incident.
- He was alleged to have attacked a police officer in a violent altercation.
- His defence argued that due to his extreme intoxication, he was unable to control his actions or form the specific intent necessary to commit the crime.
- The trial court had directed the jury that self-induced intoxication could not be a defence, leading to his conviction.
Appeal Arguments and Reasoning
The appellant raised the following arguments on appeal:
- Impact of Intoxication on Intent
- Why it was raised: O’Connor argued that his self-induced intoxication negated his ability to form the specific intent required for the offence. His legal team contended that intoxication can impair a person’s ability to make conscious decisions, which should have been considered in determining whether he possessed the necessary intent.
- Key issue: Whether intoxication could be used to challenge the prosecution’s claim that he had the intent to commit the offence.
- Jury Instructions
- Why it was raised: The trial judge instructed the jury that self-induced intoxication was not a defence, which O’Connor’s legal team argued was incorrect. They claimed that this misdirection prevented the jury from properly considering whether his intoxication affected his mental state and ability to commit the crime.
- Key issue: Whether the failure to properly instruct the jury on the role of intoxication constituted a miscarriage of justice.
Outcome
- Appeal Allowed: The High Court of Australia allowed O’Connor’s appeal and quashed his conviction.
- Reasoning:
- The court held that self-induced intoxication could be considered when determining whether an accused had the specific intent required for certain offences.
- It was determined that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by stating that intoxication was irrelevant.
- The failure to provide proper jury instructions on the relevance of intoxication constituted a miscarriage of justice, necessitating the quashing of the conviction.
Legal Principles Highlighted
This case established important legal standards regarding intoxication and criminal responsibility:
- Intoxication and Specific Intent: Self-induced intoxication may be considered when determining whether an accused possessed the specific intent required for certain offences.
- Jury Instructions on Intoxication: Trial judges must properly instruct juries on how to assess the effect of intoxication on the formation of intent.
- Legal Precedent on Mens Rea: The ruling reinforced the principle that criminal liability requires proof of intent, and if intoxication affects a person’s ability to form that intent, it may be relevant in assessing guilt.
Significance of the Case
The decision in R v O’Connor marked a significant departure from previous legal interpretations that treated self-induced intoxication as irrelevant to criminal intent. The ruling established that intoxication could, in some cases, serve as a defence by negating the mental element of certain offences. However, this principle has since been modified in Australian law, with various jurisdictions imposing statutory limitations on when intoxication can be considered in criminal cases.
Key Takeaways
- Voluntary intoxication is NOT a defence – If you intentionally consume alcohol or drugs, you remain criminally responsible for your actions.
- Involuntary intoxication MAY be a defence – If intoxication was not intentional and led to a state equivalent to insanity under Section 27, a person may not be held criminally responsible.
- Specific intent offences – Intoxication may be considered in determining whether an accused had the necessary intent, but it does not excuse liability.
Conclusion
While intoxication is rarely a complete defence, it can be relevant when assessing intent, mental impairment, and criminal responsibility. If you are facing criminal charges where intoxication is a factor, seeking legal advice from an experienced criminal defence lawyer in Perth is crucial.
Understanding Section 28 of the Criminal Code can make a significant difference in the outcome of a case.
