New Zealand Law/Criminal/Intoxication

Commentary

1. Not a defence in itself.
2. Intoxication may negate mens rea.
3. Intoxication is only available only where specific intent is required for the offence.

Cases

R v Kamipeli

• Facts

1. While drunk, defendant kicked another to death.
2. Trial judge directed jury that, in order to acquit, they would have to find that the defendant was so drunk that he was acting as an automaton.

• Held

1. The Crown must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Intoxication is just part of the totality of the evidence which may raise reasonable doubt as to essential elements.

R v Tihi

• Facts

1. Tihi and two others attempted to rob a man, severely beating and killing him.
2. Although T was extremely drunk, he was able to give a fairly detailed description of the attack to the Police.

• Held

1. The jury should have regard to all of the evidence when considering whether T had the requisite intent.
2. If intent cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by virtue of the amount of alcohol consumed, the verdict should be manslaughter.
3. It is not for the judge to give his opinion of the evidence.
4. A jury, with common sense and experience of life, is able to judge whether a man in a drunken state may or may not have had murderous intent.
5. Intoxication is not the only consideration, also the duration and degree of violence required to inflict the extensive and serious injuries which caused death.