The defence of intoxication is a defence in criminal law. It implies that the accused committed the crime while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Poisoning can be involuntary or voluntary.
Involuntary poisoning
This defence can be raised where the accused is unknowingly under the influence of an intoxicant. If accepted, it leads to the acquittal of the accused. For example, in King, the accused left the dental office after partial anesthesia without being informed of the effects of anesthesia. He was arrested for dangerous driving, but acquitted of unintentional intoxication.
In order for this defence to be effective, the accused must be unaware that he was intoxicated at the time the offence was committed. On the other hand, negligence, recklessness or wilful blindness render the defence inadmissible.
The defence is analysed on the basis of two criteria:
- Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have been aware of the effects and thus refrained from ingesting the substance?
- At the time the person begins to commit the offence, could he or she not have foreseen the effects of intoxication?
It will be sufficient for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt as to the involuntariness of his intoxication, and there will be an acquittal.
Self-induced intoxication
This defence relates to cases where the accused has voluntarily ingested an intoxicant. This defence cannot be invoked for all crimes, and the availability of it will also depend on the degree of intoxication.
There are 3 degrees of intoxication: mild intoxication, advanced intoxication, and extreme intoxication.
Mild intoxication
It’s the simple letting go of inhibitions, while maintaining socially acceptable behavior. Mild intoxication is not a defence in court.
Advanced Intoxication
It implies that the person is aware of his or her actions, but only in the immediate future. There is therefore an impairment of the ability to foresee the consequences of one’s actions. This defence will be accepted as a defence only for crimes that require specific intent, not general intent. These are crimes that require a more complex mental process, where the perpetrator seeks the accomplishment of an additional illegal purpose.
For example, murder is a crime of specific intent, since it requires intent to cause death. Conversely, manslaughter does not require intent to cause death, so it is a crime of general intent; The mere act of causing death is the crime in itself.
It will therefore be accepted that the person’s advanced state of intoxication prevented him from expressing this specific intention when he commits the crime of specific intent, which is why it will be an admissible defence in these cases. It will be sufficient for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt that intoxication prevented him from expressing the specific intent.
However, this does not necessarily mean that he will be acquitted: it is possible that he will be convicted of an offence of general intent included in the offence of specific intent. For example, a person who commits murder in an advanced state of intoxication would not be acquitted, but rather convicted of manslaughter.
Extreme intoxication
Extreme intoxication refers to a state close to that of automatism or insanity. The intoxicated person is no longer aware of his or her conduct, he or she cannot consciously control himself. This is a defence that is rarely raised. It is more difficult to prove: it requires, among other things, the evidence of an expert, and the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. This defence allows for the acquittal of crimes of general intent, since it is considered that the person who was intoxicated did not act voluntarily, did not control his actions.
It should be noted that the Criminal Code provides an exception to this defence. An accused who commits a violent crime that causes or threatens to harm the physical integrity of a person, even in a state of extreme intoxication, will be held criminally responsible if he or she has consumed the intoxicants negligently. It will be considered negligent if it has departed markedly from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, in the circumstances, with respect to the use of intoxicants; That is, to say that he chose to consume despite the fact that the risk was foreseeable.
Whether the intoxication is unintentional or voluntary, each case presents unique challenges and significant legal implications. At Lambert Avocats, we have the experience and skills to thoroughly assess the elements of your case and to offer a robust defence.
If you are faced with criminal charges where intoxication plays a role, do not hesitate to contact us for effective legal representation.