1920 AC 479 ,House of Lords
This Case-summary is written by Tejaswi Netam, LL.B. 2nd year studying at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi during her Internship at LeDroit India.
Facts
Arthur Beard was drunk one day when he committed the offence of rape on a minor girl of mere 12-13 years of age. During the act, he tried to suppress the voice of the victim by putting her hands on her mouth and throat. It lead to her death due to lack of oxygen leading to suffocation.
Prosecution
When Charged with the offence of Murder, he put forward the defence of intoxication.
The defence of intoxication was regarded with suspicion, it was feared that the state of drunkenness could be easily feigned or counterfeited. Others feared that, “There could rarely be a conviction for homicide if drunkenness avoided responsibility”. It was felt that one should not escape the results of his crime by reason of his own vice and misconduct. These views seem to reflect more of an emotional condemnation of the drunkard rather than a reasoned analysis of its effect on the requisite mental element in a crime.
Course of trial
The accused was in the trial found guilty of murder by the jury and was sentenced to death. However, his appeal was allowed by the appellate court which applied the ratio of Rex v meade {[1909] 1 K.B. 895}- “that the presumption that man intends the natural consequences of his acts may be rebutted by showing the mind of the accused was so affected by drink that he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was dangerous. due to drunkenness”, and held that the accused could not have intended the murder and lowered the punishment to that of Manslaughter (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
Naturally, the crown again appealed to the house of lords for the correction.
Decision of the House of Lords
Lord chancellor speaking for the bench found the decision relied on by the lower court to be very broad.
House of lords restored the conviction for murder following the reasoning that-
- “The evidence available didn’t proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime”
Because rape is a crime which cannot be committed unintentionally. Therefore the fact that the accused was committing rape is inconsistent with the argument of the accused that he was not capable of intent to constitute crime.
Simply speaking, when a person commits rape he cannot reason that he was drunk and was incapable of forming intent. When this intent can be formed, he can not be excused from other intent or knowledge.
- “Merely establishing that the mind was so affected 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”
Presumption of natural consequences can be illustrated as- When a person strikes someone with axe fatally, he cannot act surprised and plead that he thought nothing would happen. It is natural that the person would be injured and he may die.
If someone proves that due to drunkenness, he followed his instinct, how can he be excused from the act?
Conclusion
For the above-mentioned reasons, beard had no defence to Rape. As the death occurred in furtherance of a felony, there was no need to show that beard intended to cause the death. Such killing is murder by the law of England.
Current applicability
Involuntary drunkenness is a complete defence and this view is justified because the older jurists felt that it was not open to the same abuse as voluntary drunkenness.
In common law as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023(BNS){sec. 23} The general exception of loss of judgement by reason of intoxication is available but only if it is caused against the will of the person. For example If a person himself gets drunk, then he cannot claim this defence. On the other hand if someone intoxicates other against their will (for example without their knowledge mixing something in their drink etc), and leads the so intoxicated person to somewhere to commit a crime, then this defence is available. The Burden of proof obviously lies on the person so claiming and the court would presume that such conditions weren’t there unless ofcourse rebutted.
Jerome Hall1 concludes that it is almost necessary for one to be bound and restrained by force while the intoxicant is poured into his mouth before he can avail himself of the defence of involuntary drunkenness.
- Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis, BobbsMerrill, 1960), p. 530; 1st ed. 1947, p. 429.
