intoxication
introduction section 13 (1) of the penal code, cap 87 of te laws of zambia states that intoxication shall not constitute defence to any criminal charge.
13(4) intoxication shall not be taken into account the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention specific or otherwise in the absence of which would not be guilty of the ofence
Intoxication is not a defense to a crime as such. But where a person thru drink and drugs and commits a crime, the levels of intoxication maybe such to prevent the defender from forming a mens rea of a crime. Public policy plays a strong factor in ascertaining weather the defendants intoxication is maybe used by the defendant to negate the mens rea of a crime. It is obviously not in the public interest for criminals to escape liability simply by ascertaining that they were drunk they did not know what they were doing, this would be seen as aggravating factor rather than a mitigation factor particularly were the defendant himself in that position.
The law has formulated various rules of uncertain ambit in seeking to strike the balance between on the one hand imposing criminal liability on a party who did not have the mental capacity/element of the crime and the other protecting the public from persons who deliberately put themselves in a position where they are unable to control their actions. For this reason the law draws or distinction between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication, the law generally is more accommodating to those who have not voluntarily put themselves into an intoxication state.
A distinction has to be drawn between being drunken and being intoxicated.a drunken man may commit acts whilst under the influence of the drink or drugs that he would never commit whilst sober. But he will to raise the defense of intoxication if he is nevertheless still capable of forming the necessary mens rea for the crime; this was stressed in R v Sheehan and Moore 19751 that a drunken
13(4) intoxication shall not be taken into account the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention specific or otherwise in the absence of which would not be guilty of the ofence
Intoxication is not a defense to a crime as such. But where a person thru drink and drugs and commits a crime, the levels of intoxication maybe such to prevent the defender from forming a mens rea of a crime. Public policy plays a strong factor in ascertaining weather the defendants intoxication is maybe used by the defendant to negate the mens rea of a crime. It is obviously not in the public interest for criminals to escape liability simply by ascertaining that they were drunk they did not know what they were doing, this would be seen as aggravating factor rather than a mitigation factor particularly were the defendant himself in that position.
The law has formulated various rules of uncertain ambit in seeking to strike the balance between on the one hand imposing criminal liability on a party who did not have the mental capacity/element of the crime and the other protecting the public from persons who deliberately put themselves in a position where they are unable to control their actions. For this reason the law draws or distinction between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication, the law generally is more accommodating to those who have not voluntarily put themselves into an intoxication state.
A distinction has to be drawn between being drunken and being intoxicated.a drunken man may commit acts whilst under the influence of the drink or drugs that he would never commit whilst sober. But he will to raise the defense of intoxication if he is nevertheless still capable of forming the necessary mens rea for the crime; this was stressed in R v Sheehan and Moore 19751 that a drunken