The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

MARCH 1996

B O O K

R E V I E W S

formed the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved". This passage and in particular the word "specific" has, as indicated by the Commission, led to a controversial development in the criminal law in England. In DPP v Majewski [1977] A.C. 443 [1976] 2 All ER, a distinction has been drawn between crimes of "specific" intent and crimes of "basic" intent. A crime of basic (or general) intent is one whose definition expresses, or more often implies, a mens rea which does not go beyond the actus reus. It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness in crimes of basic intent (examples include rape, manslaughter, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and malicious wounding) is sufficient to constitute the necessary mens rea. A crime of specific (or special) intent (examples includes larceny, murder and wounding with intent) is one where the prosecution has to prove that the purpose of the commission of the act extends to the intent expressed in the definition of that crime. The Law Lords decision in latter i.e. in crimes of specific intent. Irish law has not responded in this way and self-induced intoxication does not afford a defence to a criminal charge. The Commission's recommendation, inter alia, is a legislative provision that it should never afford a defence to a criminal charge, while involuntary intoxication should. Majewski is that self-induced intoxication is a defence in the

The Law Reform Commission Report on Intoxication

Telecommunications Law and Prac t i ce

P a p e r b a c k; 20pp, £2.00. (November 1995)

Second edition. By Colin D. Long, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1995, xv + 709pp, £90 h a r d b a c k. Stand in a quiet part of the countryside, away from new houses and new farming methods, and you may visualise a scene that has not changed for many hundreds of years. Yet in the earthly silence, radio and telephone signals bearing messages in many tongues circulate endlessly around us. In a few decades we have harnessed the unseen energy around us to enable us to communicate with one another in most places in the globe that would not have been contemplated by our grand parents. Telecommunication law is still a specialised area but the telecommunication sector is one of the fastest growing in the economy. Colin Long's second edition is thus timely. The book is divided into several parts. Part One in 15 chapters deals with telecommunication law in its various aspects including telephones, radio communications, cable and satellite broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Part Two considers European Community telecommunication law and practice and Part Three considers the telecommunication law in various countries including Italy, France, Australia, Japan and the United States but Ireland is not included. This is a book for the specialist, a lawyer or policy maker in the telecommunication field. Colin Long and his collaborators have made a significant contribution to this fast- growing area of law.

This report is essential reading for practitioners and should be read with the Commission's excellent Consultation Paper (February 1995) on "Intoxication as a defence to a criminal office". The latter provides a substantial review of the development of the defence in the common law, considers the present law and proposals for reform in other jurisdictions and suggests legislative proposals in Ireland. In practice, voluntary intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge in Ireland, that is, crimes requiring a specific or basic intent. It is regarded as a factor aggravating guilt. Intoxication may arise by alcohol or drugs or by a combination of both. The principles governing intoxication by alcohol and drugs are the same (Lipman [1970], 1 QB 152 [1969] 2 All ER 410). This is synonymous with offences of strict liability and manifested in, for example, the Road Traffic Act 1994 [No. 7 of 1994]. Where, however, drunkenness is involuntary, different considerations may apply and may be pleaded where it is claimed to have negated the mens rea for the crime charged. In such cases, no Irish Court has specifically overruled the decision in DPP v Beard [ 1920] AC 479 which decided that "where a specific intent is an essential element in the offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact

Tom Cahill, M.Litt., M.C.I.T.,

Dr Eamonn G Hall

Barrister-at-Law.

•

80