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.

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.