96 / 448
GAZETTE
B O O K
R E V I E W S
MARCH 1996
The Law Reform Commission
Report on Intoxication
P a p e r b a c k; 20pp, £2.00.
(November 1995)
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
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
Majewski is that self-induced
intoxication is a defence in the
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.
Tom Cahill,
M.Litt., M.C.I.T.,
Barrister-at-Law.
Telecommunications Law
and Prac t i ce
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.
Dr Eamonn G Hall
•
80