NCJ Number
62059
Journal
University of Queensland Law Journal Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (DECEMBER 1977) Pages: 70-82
Date Published
1977
Length
13 pages
Annotation
CASE LAW CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF INTOXICATION ON CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIMES IN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA, IS EXAMINED TO CLARIFY ISSUES ON WHICH THE COURTS HAVE NOT MADE AUTHORITATIVE RULINGS.
Abstract
SECTION 28 OF QUEENSLAND'S CRIMINAL CODE MAKES INTOXICATION A DEFENSE ONLY WHEN IT IS UNINTENTIONAL AND DEPRIVES THE ACCUSED OF ONE OF THE THREE CAPACITIES (UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACT, CONTROL OVER ACTIONS, OR AWARENESS OF WRONGDOING) SPECIFIED IN THE INSANITY DEFENSE. THE SECTION STATES THAT EVIDENCE REGARDING INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL INTOXICATION IS RELEVANT WHEN THE OFFENSE UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVES INTENTION TO CAUSE A SPECIFIC RESULT. AREAS IN WHICH COURTS HAVE NOT ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION INCLUDE SOME OF SECTION 28'S TERMS, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SECTION AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE, INCLUDING THE SECTIONS ON INSANITY, INVOLUNTARINESS, MISTAKES OF FACT, AND DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY. FOR EXAMPLE, IN CASES OF INSANITY CAUSED BY INTOXICATION, SECTION 28 DOES NOT APPLY. INTOXICATION, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL, DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ACCUSED TO AN ABSOLUTE ACQUITTAL. ONLY THE INSANITY ITSELF SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACQUITTAL. IN CONTRAST, IF THE MENTAL DISEASE WAS NOT CAUSED BY DRINK, BUT THE ACCUSED WAS INTOXICATED WHEN THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER BOTH THE TIME OF DRINKING AND THE TIMING OF THE CRIME IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE INSANITY DEFENSE COULD APPLY. THE 1963 CASE OF A-G FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V. GALLAGHER ILLUSTRATES THIS POINT. SIMILARLY, CASE LAW ANALYSIS SUGGESTS ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF TERMS USED, OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE VERDICT UNDER SECTION 28, AND THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SECTION 28 AND THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE. FOOTNOTES WHICH INCLUDE REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)