| 单词 | Intoxication defence |
| 释义 | 神智不清抗辯理由 The negation of certain elements of a crime due to some conditions inconsistent with criminal responsibility caused by the voluntary ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Intoxication cannot of itself excuse the commission of a crime: DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142, 62 Cr App Rep 262, [1977] AC 443 (HL). However, intoxication is relevant to whether the mens rea of a crime has been established where the crime is one of specific intent: DPP v Majewski, supra; A-G v Choi Wah Hang & Anor [1987] 1 HKC 104 (CA). The issue is not the capacity of the accused to form such an intent but whether he did in fact form it: R v Sheehan, R v Moore [1975] 2 All ER 960 (CA); R v Yeung Ka Wah [1992] 1 HKC 84 (CA). Intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge if the prosecution can prove that the accused ingested the alcohol or drugs to give him the courage to commit the offence: AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1961] 3 All ER 299, [1963] AC 349 (HL). The burden of proof is generally on the prosecution to show that the intoxication was self-induced: R v Yeung Ka Wah, supra. See also Intoxication; Self-induced intoxication. 由於某些條件不符合自願飲酒或使用藥物而引起的刑事責任，某些罪行的元素因而得到否定。神智不清本身不能寬宥犯罪：DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142, 62 Cr App Rep 262, [1977] AC 443（上議院）。然而，凡罪行為特定意圖罪行，神智不清就罪行的犯罪意圖是否已確立有關聯：DPP v Majewski, supra；A-G v Choi Wah Han & Anor [1987] 1 HKC 104（上訴法院）。爭論點並非被控是否有行為能力形成該意圖，而是到底被控有否形成該意圖：R v Sheehan, R v Moore [1975] 2 All ER 960（芵國上法院）；R v Yeung Ka Wah [1992] 1 HKC 84（上訴法院）。如檢控方證明被控為要鼓起勇氣犯罪而飲酒或使用藥物，神智不清則不能成為某刑事控罪的抗辯理由：AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1961] 3 All ER 299, [1963] AC 349（上議院）。證明神智不清乃自我引發的舉證責任一般在控方身上：R v Yeung Ka Wah, 見上文。另見 Intoxication; Self-induced intoxication。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。