A THEORY OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENCE

Abstract

This article’s main objective is to dispel the notion that the rules governing the intoxication defence are illogical and absurd. Without commenting on validity or desirability, the author situates the liability of an intoxicated accused within English and Canadian case law and social discourse. He examines conditions for the availability of the defence, specifically, the ulterior intent requirement and fixed penalties. The author tests his theory of the defence using two lists classifying crimes as requiring proof of either specific or general intent, and concludes the theory is able to account for the classification of all but three crimes, a result he deems sufficient to refute the claims of absurdity surrounding the defence. He ends by describing the form of the defence when it is available, according to degrees of intoxication.