1. ISSUE
• Whether Chun can raise the defence of
intoxication to escape him from criminal
liability arising from the incident.

2. LAW
•
The general rule provide under section 85(1) is that intoxication shall not
constitute a defence to any criminal liability. It is obviously not in the public
interest for criminals to escape liability simply by asserting they were so drunk
they did not know what they were doing. The law is generally more
accommodating to those who have not voluntarily put themselves into an
intoxicated state.
•
Section 85(2) provides that intoxication can only be a defence in the following
circumstances :
(1) at the time of the act or omission complained the accused did not know that
such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing; and
(2) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or
negligent act of another person, or the person charged was, by reason of
intoxication insane, temporary or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.

3. •
Intoxication, in its operation as a defence in the circumstances enumerated in section 85, is
excusatory in nature. The essence of the defence is that the accused:
(a) being in a state of intoxication;
(b) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act
of another person;
(c) state of his intoxication rendered him insane;
(d) did not know that his act or omission was wrong or not know what he was doing.
•
In DPP v Majewski, the appellant had taken a substantial quantity of drugs over a 48 hour
period. He then went to a pub and had a drink. He got into a fight with two others. The
landlord went to break up the fight and the appellant attacked him. When the police
arrived, he assaulted the arresting officer. Another officer was struck by the appellant when
he was being driven to the police station. The next morning he attacked a police inspector in
his cell. He was charged with four counts of occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts
of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. The appellant claimed he had no
recollection of the events due to his intoxication. He was found guilty on all counts and
appealed contending that he could not be convicted when he lacked the mens rea of the
offences due to his intoxicated state.
•
The appeal was dismissed by the court. Conviction upheld. The crime was one of the basic
intent and therefore his intoxication could not be relied on as a defence.

4. APPLICATION
• In section 85(1) of the Penal Code it is stated the general rule
that intoxication cannot be a defence for any criminal charge.
Relating to the case, Chun may raise the defence of
intoxication if and only if he establishes the elements of
intoxication under section 85(2). The first element is that he is
being in a state of intoxication. During the incident, Chun was
drunk when he hit Tzu thus he fulfill the first element. The
second element is that the state of intoxication was caused
without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of
another person.

5. •
In the problem, Chun voluntarily drank too much and continued drinking
despite advice from friends that he should stop. Therefore, the second
element is not established. Thirdly, the state of intoxication rendered him
insane. In the problem, Chun can be said to be sane as he managed to
leave the dinner party and went back to his car. It is an intended act that
he grabbed the baseball bat and went inside to hit Tzu. Chun did not fulfill
the third element. The last element is that he did not know that his act or
omission was wrong or not know what he was doing. In the case, Chun
claimed was not conscious of his action. Therefore, the fourth element is
established.
Since 3 out of four elements of intoxication under section 85(2) is not
established, Chun therefore cannot rely on the defence of intoxication.
By the virtue of the case DPP v Majewski also, Chun may not apply for
intoxication for defence as his action of going back into the dinner party
with a baseball bat after being asked to leave is an intended act to harm
Tzu.

6. CONCLUSION
• Chun cannot rely on the defence of
intoxication to escape him from criminal
liability.