Voluntary Intoxication as a Defence to Murder
Most Trinbagonians, enjoy socialising, some of whom associate having a good time with drinking alcohol. But what happens when the lime takes a dark turn? Suppose a drunken argument at the bar escalates into a fight, and someone ends up dead. Can the person responsible say “I was too drunk to know what I was doing”? This article explores the legal landscape of voluntary intoxication as a defence to murder.
Murder vs Manslaughter
Voluntary intoxication is the deliberate consumption of alcohol or drugs. It is also called self-induced intoxication, since it requires the individual to voluntarily consume the alcohol or drugs. This is different from involuntary intoxication, for example, where a person’s drink is spiked by another person. It must clearly be stated that the voluntary taking of alcohol or drugs cannot of itself be an excuse for the commission of a crime. Whether or not it can apply to the offence of murder depends on the circumstances of the case. To understand why, we need to take a quick look at how murder is defined in law.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with the intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. Most criminal offences require two key ingredients:
- The actus reus – the guilty act; and
- The mens rea – the guilty mind or intent
For cases of murder, the actus reus is the commission of the act which caused the death of another person. However, you must also have the mens rea which is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (really serious harm).
There are instances where a person kills another person but did not have the intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. In such cases, the charge may be reduced from murder to manslaughter. This distinction is important because murder carries a mandatory death sentence whereas manslaughter allows for a much wider range of sentencing options which can range from a term of years to, in extreme cases, the death penalty.
Is Voluntary Intoxication a Defence to Murder?
Whether the substance is alcohol or drugs, the same rules apply. Murder is an offence which requires a specific intention as discussed above. Therefore, voluntary intoxication can be relevant, but only if it is shown that the person didn’t have the required mental intent (mens rea).
Voluntary intoxication cannot result in a complete acquittal for murder. However, if it is successfully shown that the accused was so drunk that he could not have formed the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, then it can reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. In essence, intoxication relates to the issue of mens rea.
It is important to note that this defence is not easy to raise. It is not enough to say that “I would not have done it if I was sober” or “I can’t remember anything because I was drunk”. The law requires that the drunkenness renders a person incapable of forming the intention to kill, to the degree that they did not know what they were doing.
Dutch Courage
When a person gets drunk on purpose to build up the courage to commit a crime, the defence of intoxication would not work. This is known in law as “Dutch Courage.” Drunkenness is not a defence for a sane and sober person who forms the intention to kill and then gets so drunk that when he does carry out the attack, he is incapable of forming that intention.
A Local Case: Sooklal and Mansingh
A notable example from our country is the case of Sooklal, Mansingh v The State (1999). Two men, Sooklal and Mansingh, were convicted of killing a 52 year old housemaid. It was believed that she had tried to influence Sooklal’s father-in-law to leave his property to her instead of the family. The men decided something had to be done to stop her. As a result, she was taken to a quiet location where her throat was cut.
At trial, Mansingh claimed he had consumed two drinks of puncheon rum that day and couldn’t remember what happened because he was drunk. He argued that he lacked the intention required for murder. The Privy Council ruled that this level of intoxication was not enough for Mansingh to rely on intoxication as his defence. The Privy Council also stated that the intoxication must have been of such a degree that it prevented him from foreseeing or knowing what he would have foreseen or known had he been sober.
Conclusion
The law is clear, voluntary intoxication is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for murder. It may reduce a charge to manslaughter, but only in cases where the accused was so intoxicated that they truly could not form the intent to kill. Simply being drunk is not enough. As shown in local case law, the courts set a high bar for this defence, and “I was drunk” will not easily excuse a deadly act.
Submitted by:
Shuzvon Ramdass Public Defender Entry
Public Defenders’ Department
Legal Aid and Advisory Authority,
23 Stanmore Avenue, Port of Spain.
Contact: 638-5222
Email: [email protected]
Website: laaa.org.tt