EVIDENCE OF INTOXICATION IN AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL COURTS : A COMPLEX VARIABLE WITH MULTIPLE EFFECTS

Luke McNamara, Julia Quilter, Kate Seear, R. Room
{"title":"EVIDENCE OF INTOXICATION IN AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL COURTS : A COMPLEX VARIABLE WITH MULTIPLE EFFECTS","authors":"Luke McNamara, Julia Quilter, Kate Seear, R. Room","doi":"10.26180/5DB808801DBF1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reports on the second stage of a national study of how the effects of alcohol and other drugs are treated by criminal laws and the criminal justice system. Based on a mixed methods analysis of more than 300 appellate court decisions from all Australian jurisdictions handed down in the period 2010–2014, we identify the multiple points at which legal significance is attached to evidence that the accused, the victim or a witness was ‘intoxicated’ at the time of the alleged commission of a criminal offence. Focusing on the rules and principles endorsed by appellate courts in relation to four key ‘sites’ of criminal justice decision-making — the admissibility of police interviews, the credibility and reliability of witness testimony, adjudication on the criminal responsibility of the accused, and determination of sentence for convicted offenders — we show that the impact of intoxication on the enforcement of the criminal law is complex. There is no single characterisation that can account for the multiple points at which intoxication may need to be assessed, and the divergent ways in which it can impact on adjudication. Depending on a range of site-specific and case-specific considerations, intoxication evidence may expand/contract the parameters of criminal responsibility, and it may yield higher or lower criminal penalties.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"148-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB808801DBF1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article reports on the second stage of a national study of how the effects of alcohol and other drugs are treated by criminal laws and the criminal justice system. Based on a mixed methods analysis of more than 300 appellate court decisions from all Australian jurisdictions handed down in the period 2010–2014, we identify the multiple points at which legal significance is attached to evidence that the accused, the victim or a witness was ‘intoxicated’ at the time of the alleged commission of a criminal offence. Focusing on the rules and principles endorsed by appellate courts in relation to four key ‘sites’ of criminal justice decision-making — the admissibility of police interviews, the credibility and reliability of witness testimony, adjudication on the criminal responsibility of the accused, and determination of sentence for convicted offenders — we show that the impact of intoxication on the enforcement of the criminal law is complex. There is no single characterisation that can account for the multiple points at which intoxication may need to be assessed, and the divergent ways in which it can impact on adjudication. Depending on a range of site-specific and case-specific considerations, intoxication evidence may expand/contract the parameters of criminal responsibility, and it may yield higher or lower criminal penalties.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚刑事法庭的醉酒证据:一个具有多重影响的复杂变量
本文报道了一项关于刑法和刑事司法系统如何处理酒精和其他药物影响的国家研究的第二阶段。基于对2010-2014年期间澳大利亚所有司法管辖区的300多个上诉法院判决的混合方法分析,我们确定了被告、受害者或证人在所谓的刑事犯罪发生时“醉酒”的证据具有法律意义的多个点。我们将重点放在上诉法院就刑事司法决策的四个关键“地点”(警方采访的可采性、证人证词的可信度和可靠性、对被告刑事责任的裁决以及对被定罪罪犯的判决)所认可的规则和原则上,表明醉酒对刑法执行的影响是复杂的。没有一个单一的特征可以解释中毒可能需要评估的多个点,以及它可能影响裁决的不同方式。根据具体地点和具体案件的考虑范围,醉酒证据可能扩大/缩小刑事责任的范围,并可能产生更高或更低的刑事处罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Section 32(1) of the Victorian Charter: strained constructions and legislative intention Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance) Is the Wisdom of a Person's Decision Relevant to Their Capacity to Make That Decision? Not Black and White?: Disciplinary Regulation of Doctors Convicted of Child Pornography Offences in Australia Reconceptualising the Law of the Dead by Expanding the Interests of the Living
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1