Defence of Intoxication
The Defence of Intoxication
For most crimes, the fact that a person voluntarily consumed alcohol/drugs and became so drunk that they did not intend to commit the particular crime alleged of, would not absolve them of liability. There are however a specific set or subset of crimes where the defence of intoxication could in fact play a part in nullifying or reducing a person’s liability. These types of offences are known as specific intent offences and include offences like murder or theft.
From Murder to Manslaughter
A murder charge could be reduced to manslaughter, a lesser offence, if a jury was left in doubt as to whether the accused intended to cause death or cause bodily harm with the subjective foresight of death. In other words, if a person was so drunk that they did not intended to kill a person through his or her actions then intoxication could assist a person.
In R. v. Steinhauer 2015 ABCA 3 the Alberta Court of Appeal concluded that a new trial was necessary because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that the defence of intoxication was a live issue and could reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.
Theft and Intoxication
Reluctantly[1] judges have acquitted individuals who were so drunk that they did not form the requisite intent necessary to steal. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath on trying to run this type of defence too often. While the defence is available for theft type offence judges have also set the bar very high in applying the defence[2].
Conclusion
The defence of intoxication remains a viable defence in Canada and should not be discounted in certain circumstances.
—————————————————————————————————————
[1] A judge made these comments: “ I cannot leave this decision without expressing my feeling of dissatisfaction at the result. The accused has escaped conviction because the Crown has been unable to rely as it normally does upon certain presumptions for proof of an essential fact to each charge. It has been unable to do so because of diminished capacity self-induced by the accused. Society cannot protect itself against such anti-social activity with its present machinery. New procedures are apparently necessary to prevent individuals such as this accused from benefiting from their own wrongful acts.” see R. v. Bucci [1974] NSJ No. 211
[2] See R. v. Drader 2009 ABPC 360.