Intoxication Offences

Intoxication offences in Australia are taken very seriously, and the penalties for committing such offences can be severe. Picture this: A Friday night in your favourite Aussie pub. The bar hums with conversation, beers flow, and mates gather for a good time. But amidst the merriment, a question lingers: how much is too much when it comes to indulging?

Intoxication offences refer to the act of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while committing a criminal offence. These offences can range from minor misdemeanours to serious crimes, such as assault or driving under the influence (DUI). To know more about intoxication offences, read this article. 

Section 428A: Definition of Terms Under Intoxication Offences

Section 428A of the Crimes Act NSW (1900) lays out the meaning of some important words used when discussing intoxication offences in Australia. Let’s unpack them:

1. Drug: This covers anything defined as a “drug” in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, or a poison, restricted substance, or drug of addiction under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

2. Intoxication: This simply means being under the influence of alcohol, a drug, or any other substance.

3. Offence: This includes the completed act and attempts to commit it.

4. Offence of Specific Intent: This refers to a crime where the offender had a specific goal in mind (more on this later).

5. Relevant Conduct: This is any action or inaction that makes up the essential elements of a crime.

6. Self-Induced Intoxication: This covers any intoxication you brought upon yourself, unless:

• It was involuntary (someone forced you or tricked you).
• It happened due to an urgent and unforeseen situation, accident, honest mistake, or pressure.
• It resulted from taking a prescribed medication legally or following the manufacturer’s instructions for an over-the-counter drug.

Section 428B: Offences of Specific Intent to Which Part Applies

Section 428B of intoxication offences outlines the following:

An “offence of specific intent” is an offence that requires an intention to cause a specific result.

The offences listed in the table below this section are illustrative examples of offences involving specific intent.

Offences under specified provisions of this Act, including but not limited to:

• Murder
• Acts with the intent to murder a person
• Acts with the intent to murder property
• Attempts to murder by various means
• Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent
• Discharging a firearm with intent
• Use of a weapon to resist arrest, etc.
• Choking, suffocation, or strangulation with intent to commit another indictable offence
• Using intoxicating substances to commit an indictable offence
• Spiking drinks or food
• Using poison to injure or cause distress
• Poisoning water supply
• Using explosive substances or corrosive fluids
• Placing explosives in or near a building, conveyance, or public place
• Setting traps
• Predatory driving
• Possessing or making explosives or other harmful items with intent to injure
• Obtaining personal information about law enforcement officers
• Assault with intent to have sexual intercourse
• Kidnapping
• Child abduction
• Installing devices for observation or filming
• Threatening to contaminate goods with intent to cause public alarm or economic loss
• Making false statements about the contamination of goods with intent to cause public alarm or economic loss
• Leaving or sending an article with the intent to cause alarm
• Demanding property with intent to steal
• Breaking, entering, and assaulting with intent to murder, etc.
• Entering a dwelling-house
• Breaking into any house, etc., with intent to commit a serious indictable offence
• Being armed, etc., with intent to commit an offence
• Receiving unlawfully killed cattle or carcasses, etc.
• Intention to defraud by destroying or concealing accounting records
• Intention to defraud by false or misleading statements
• Intention to deceive members or creditors by false or misleading statements of an officer of the organisation

Other Offences

• Dealing with identification information
• Possession of identification information
• Possession of equipment, etc., to make identification documents or things
• Money laundering
• Dealing with a property that subsequently becomes an instrument of crime
• Destroying or damaging property with intent to injure a person
• Destroying or damaging property with the intention of endangering life
• Threatening to destroy or damage property
• Possession, etc., of explosive or another article with the intent to destroy or damage property
• Interfering or damaging, etc., bed or bank of a river with intent of obstructing, etc., navigation
• Sabotage
• Threaten sabotage
• Prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft or vessel
• Acting with the intention of destroying, etc., aids to navigation
• Criminal acts relating to railways
• Misleading documents or statements used or made by agents
• Corrupt inducements for advice
• Blackmail offence
• Forgery–making a false document
• Using a false document
• Possession of a false document
• Making or possession of equipment, etc., for making false documents
• Unauthorised access, modification, or impairment with intent to commit a serious indictable offence
• Unauthorised modification of data with the intent to cause impairment
• Possession of data with the intent to commit a serious computer offence
• Producing, supplying, or obtaining data with the intent to commit a serious computer offence
• Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer
• Unauthorised impairment of data held in a computer disk, credit card, or other device
• False accusations, etc.
• Hindering investigation, etc.
• Tampering, etc., with evidence
• Making or using a false official instrument to pervert the course of justice
• General offence of perverting the course of justice
• Corruption of witnesses and jurors
• Threats or intimidation–judges and other persons connected with judicial proceedings
• Influencing witnesses and jurors
• Perjury with the intent to procure conviction or acquittal
• Subornation of perjury
• Serious animal cruelty

Section 428B: More Intoxication Offences of Specific Intent

Offences under specified provisions of this Act to the extent that an element of the offence requires a person to intend to cause the specific result necessary for the offence, including but not limited to:

• Assault on persons preserving the wreck
• Assault with intent to commit a serious indictable offence on certain officers
• Assaulting with intent to have sexual intercourse with a child under 10
• Assaulting with intent to have sexual intercourse with a child between 10 and 16
• Intentionally recording intimate images
• Intentionally distributing intimate images
• Assault with intent to rob a person
• Assault with intent to rob in circumstances of aggravation
• Assault with intent to rob with wounding
• Assault with intent to rob with arms
• Assault with intent to rob
• Entering with intent, or stealing, etc., in a dwelling-house and breaking out
• Killing with intent to steal
• Destroys, damages, breaks with intent to steal
• Dishonestly destroying or damaging property with a view to gain
• Destruction of, or damage to, an aircraft or vessel with intent

Note: Any other offence under any law (including common law) as prescribed by the regulations.

Section 428C: Intoxication in Relation to Offences of Specific Intent

Here’s a simpler way to understand Section 428C of intoxication offences:

If someone was drunk or high when they committed a crime, the court can consider this to decide if they meant to do it. This is only for crimes where having a specific intention is important, like murder or assault. But, the court won’t consider the person’s intoxication if:

• They already decided to commit the crime before getting drunk or high.
• They got drunk or high to make themselves more sure about committing the crime.
• In other words, being drunk or high can be used as an excuse if it shows the person didn’t really mean to commit the crime. But it won’t work if they planned it beforehand or used intoxication to give themselves courage.

Section 428D: Intoxication in Relation to Other Offences

Here’s a simpler way to understand Section 428D of intoxication offences:

Basically, under this Section, being drunk or on drugs can’t be used as an excuse for most crimes.

• If you got drunk or high on your own accord (self-induced intoxication), you’re still responsible for your actions. So, if you commit a crime while drunk, you can’t blame the alcohol and expect to get off the hook.
• However, if someone else got you drunk or drugged you without your knowledge (non-self-induced intoxication), then your intoxication might be considered when deciding if you really meant to commit the crime.

Section 428E: Intoxication in Relation to Murder, Manslaughter and Assault Causing Death

Here’s a simpler way to understand Section 428E of intoxication offences:

This section deals with how being drunk or on drugs (intoxication) affects charges for serious crimes like murder, manslaughter, and assault causing death. It basically has two key points:

1. If someone gets acquitted of murder due to being drunk:

• If they got drunk on their own (self-induced), their drunkenness can’t be used to excuse them from manslaughter or assault-causing death charges. They’re still responsible for those even if they were intoxicated.
• If someone else drugged them without their knowledge (non-self-induced), their intoxication can be considered when deciding if they meant to commit manslaughter or assault causing death.

2. Assault causing death is not considered a “specific intent” crime for this section. This means that intoxication can be used as a defence for it, similar to manslaughter in the non-self-induced case.

Section 428F: Intoxication in Relation to the Reasonable Person Test

Here’s another way to rephrase Section 428F of intoxication offences:

Imagine a sober and rational “average person” as the standard. When judging someone’s guilt in a crime, we don’t compare their mental state or actions to someone drunk or high. Instead, we ask:

“Would a sober, reasonable person have acted or thought the same way in this situation?”

If the answer is yes, then the accused person’s intoxication doesn’t excuse their behaviour. Even if they were not sobered up, they’re still responsible for their actions if a sober person would have known better.

This section basically says:

• Being drunk or high isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card.
• Your intoxication might be considered when figuring out your mental state for specific crimes, but it doesn’t change the physical act you did.
• The law compares you to a sober version of yourself, not an intoxicated one.

Section 428G: Intoxication and the Actus Reus of an Offence

Here’s another way to rephrase Section 428G of intoxication offences:

1. Drunk or high on your own (self-induced intoxication):

• If you committed a crime while messed up on something you chose to take (drugs, alcohol, etc.), your intoxication doesn’t erase the physical act (“actus reus”) you did. Think of it like stumbling and punching someone while drunk: you still threw the punch, even if you wouldn’t have sober.
• However, your intoxication might still matter when figuring out your mental state (“mens rea”) for the crime. Other sections of the Act explain how this works for specific crimes like murder and assault.

2. Drugged or forced to drink (non-self-induced intoxication):

If someone else messed you up without your knowledge, you can’t be held responsible for the actual crime itself if it happened because of your non-voluntary intoxication. Picture someone spiking your drink and you driving drunk: you wouldn’t be guilty of driving under the influence because your act wasn’t truly your choice.

Section 428H: Abolition of Common Law Relating to Self-Induced Intoxication

This Section on intoxication offences discusses the following:

• The common law, which is the old set of unwritten rules judges used to follow, no longer applies when deciding if someone is guilty of a crime because they were drunk or high.
• This means that being intoxicated on your own (self-induced intoxication) doesn’t give you an automatic excuse for breaking the law.

Section 428I: Application of Part

Everything in this section about how intoxication affects criminal responsibility applies to:

• All crimes covered by this Act (the Crimes Act 1900)
• Any other crimes not covered by this Act, as long as they were committed after this section took effect (its “commencement”).

The Importance of Seeking Legal Advice

The intricacies of how intoxication impacts criminal liability, the variations in specific charges, and the potential mitigating factors all require the expertise of JB Solicitors. Here’s why legal counsel from criminal lawyers is invaluable in these situations:

• Understanding the law: Laws surrounding intoxication and criminal responsibility are complex and differ depending on the specific offence and jurisdiction. A lawyer can explain the relevant laws and how they apply to your case, ensuring you understand the potential charges and penalties.
• Building a strong defence: Legal counsel can investigate the circumstances of your case, gather evidence, and build a strong defence strategy that considers factors like the degree of intoxication, the nature of the alleged offence, and any potential mitigating factors.
• Negotiating with prosecutors: In many cases, lawyers can negotiate with prosecutors to reduce charges or seek alternative sentencing options, such as community service or drug treatment programs, potentially avoiding harsher penalties like imprisonment.
• Protecting your rights: Throughout the legal process, a lawyer will advocate for your rights and ensure you are treated fairly by the authorities. They can guide you through interactions with police and court officials, ensuring you understand your rights and responsibilities.

Contact us today for more information about intoxication offences.