Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Published date | 01 July 1964 |
| Date | 01 July 1964 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836402800305 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee of the
Privy
Council
DRUNKENNESS AND
INTENT
Broadhurst v. The Queen
INthis appeal from the Criminal Court of Malta the Board
(Lords Radcliffe, Morton of Henryton, and Devlin)
criticised
the
well-known
judgment
of
Lord
Birkenhead,
L.C., in Director
of
Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920
A.C
479) on drunkenness as a defence (1964, 2 W.L.R. 39).
This
is by no means the first time
that
this
judgment
has
met
with
judicial criticism and, for
the
future, it may be best disre-
garded as an account of
the
present law on
the
subject. One
proposition in Beard's case is that evidence of drunkenness
which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific
intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into
consideration with
the
other facts proved in order to determine
whether or not he had this intent.
In
the advice of
the
Board
delivered by
Lord
Devlin in the recent case it is said:
"The
proposition stated in Director
of
Public Prosecutions v. Beard
is not altogether easy to grasp.
If
an accused is rendered
incapable of forming an intent, whatever
the
other facts in
the
case may be, he cannot have formed it; and it would
not
therefore be sensible to take the incapacity into consideration
together with the other facts in order to determine whether
he had the necessary intent
...
it may be
that
the law as laid
down in Beard's case must now be interpreted in the light of
later decisions on the proof of guilty intent".
The
Board's advice also deals with
Lord
Birkenhead's
dictum to the effect that "evidence of drunkenness falling
short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent
necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing
that
his mind was affected by drink so
that
he more readily gave
way to some violent passion, does
not
rebut the presumption
that
a man intends the natural consequences of his acts". As
to this proposition the Board remark:
"But
much has been
said judicially since 1920 about proof of intent, notably in
180
To continue reading
Request your trial