Professor Tim Quigley
Abstract:
In this paper, the author discusses the state of the defence of intoxication in Canadian criminal law. Intoxication casting doubt on an element of an offence may, in certain circumstances, be considered by the trier of fact in a criminal trial. However, underlying the defence is the distinction between so-called specific and general intent offences and, for the latter, the actio libera in causa doctrine continues to have some relevance. The doctrine which sometimes imposes restrictions on a criminal defence where the defendant has caused the conditions of the defence has come under constitutional scrutiny in Canada. Nevertheless, the doctrine persists in spite of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence to the contrary. The author outlines and provides a critique of the current state of the defence of intoxication and argues that, while it may be permissible in terms of culpability theory to restrict excuses and justifications where the defendant has caused the conditions of the defence, it is problematic for defences that conceptually are a denial of an element of an offence.