Drunkenness and the Criminal Law
| Author | O. C. M. Davis |
| Date | 01 July 1941 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834100500309 |
| Published date | 01 July 1941 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Drunkenness and the Criminal Law
By O. C. M. DAVIS, M.D., D.Se.
Department
of
Medical
Jurisprudence,
University
of
Bristol
(Continued from p. 192)
Larceny
A
number
of cases are recorded in which, on a charge
of larceny, the defence has been
that
drunkenness prevented
the
prisoner from forming
the
intention to steal.
It
is very
difficult to maintain
such
a plea
when
the
prisoner is found
to be in possession of
the
stolen property.
Thus
in
the
case
of William Chapman who was convicted of
the
larceny of a
pair
of
boots,
and
the question was
whether
the
prisoner, by
reason of his
drunken
condition, was capable of forming a
felonious intention.
The
prisoner
had
apparently
entered
into aconversation
with
a
shopman
prior
to
the
offence.
The
Lord
Chief
Justice, in delivering
judgment
of
the
C.C.A.,
said:
"
...
To
suggest
that
a
man
is
not
guilty of larceny
when
he takes a
pair
of boots
and
puts
them
up his coat,
having previously
entered
into alucid conversation
with
a
shopman,
is absurd.
In
the
circumstances
the
legal question
of
whether
or
not
drunkenness could be a defence is
immaterial
...
"(4 Cr. App. R.,
1910).
In
the
case of James Nuttall
who
was convicted of larceny
of a
shirt
and
sentenced to eighteen
months'
hard
labour,
there
was evidence
that
the
prisoner was
drunk
at
the
time.
Channell J., in delivering
judgment
of
C.C.A. reducing
sentence to six
months'
hard
labour,
said:
"
...
there
was
evidence
that
the
prisoner was
drunk
when
the
offence was
committed,
and
the
shirt
stolen was openly exposed in
the
market
place.
These
facts were no excuse for a crime,
but
269
270
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
were elements to consider in a case of this kind.
The
sentence
was too
severe"
(1
Cr.
App.
R.,
1908).
In
arecent case at Devizes Borough
Quarter
Sessions
Michael
Quinn
pleaded
not
guilty to a charge of larceny.
His counsel pleaded
that
defendant was so
drunk
as to be
incapable of forming
the
intent
to steal. Apolice officer
stated
that
he found accused very drunk, lying in a
ditch
with some of
the
stolen property lying
under
him.
The
jury
found accused guilty,
and
he was
bound
over (Western Daily
Press and Bristol Mirror, zoth May, 1940).
Attempted Suicide
People occasionally
attempt
to commit suicide when
under
the
influence of drink.
In
R. v. Moore
the
defendant
was indicted for
the
misdemeanour of attempting to commit
suicide.
The
case was tried before
Chief
Justice Jervis at
the
Sussex
Summer
Assize in 1852.
It
appears
that
Mrs.
Moore
had
quarrelled
with
her
husband
and
threw
herself
into a well
but
was taken
out
without
injury.
The
witness
who proved these facts stated
that
at
the
time prisoner was
so
drunk
as
not
to know
what
she was about. Jervis C.J. :
"
If
the
prisoner was so
drunk
as
not
to know
what
she was
about, how can you say
that
she intended to destroy
herself?
"
Verdict,
not
guilty (3 C.
&1
K., 319, 1852).
In
R. v. Doody prisoner was charged before
Wightman
J.
at Staffordshire
Spring
Assize (1854)
with
unlawfully
attempting to commit suicide.
The
defendant
attempted
to
hang himself in
the
lavatory
of
an inn,
but
was
cut
down
and
arrested.
He
said in his defence
that
he
had
been drinking
for nine days before,
and
did
not know
what
he was doing.
There
was some evidence to show
that
although he was
-partially intoxicated he was quite capable of taking care
of
himself.
The
judge
told
the
jury
that
the
question for
them
to consider was
whether
the
prisoner had a
mind
capable of
contemplating
the
act charged,
and
whether
he did, in fact,
intend
to take away his life
...
the
mere fact of drunkenness
in this, as in
other
cases, is
not
of itself an excuse for
the
To continue reading
Request your trial