INTOXICATION

Kenneth Fook Mun Lee v. Public Prosecutor(2007)

Facts: In this case, the accused was found to be guilty of murder punishable under s302 of
the Penal Code. The High Court thus found the accused guilty of an offence under s 304(b)
of the Penal Code and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest.
The prosecution appealed against the decision and the Court of Appeal reversed the
decision of the High Court, found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.
The accused appealed to the Federal Court.

Held: The Federal Court affirms the decisions of the Court of Appeal held that s300(d) of
the Penal Code involves merely knowledge and not intention, does not come within the
ambit of s.86(2). This judgment was based on the principle of Juma’at bin Samad v. PP
where it was stated that s.86(2) applies only where the mens rea for the offence is intention .
Clause (d), being one of the categories of mens rea for the offence of murder as defined
under s300 of the Code, should not be disregarded even if s86(2) is raised. Clause (d) of
s300 of the Penal Code should not have been omitted by the trial judge in his overall
consideration of the case simply on the basis that intoxication was in issue and s86(2) could
be invoked.

Public Prosecutor v. William Josep ak Ah Kiang [2018] 8 MLJ 532

Facts: In this case, the accused arrested and suspected to have killed his own brother. The
deceased was stabbed with knife which penetrated through the first left intercostal space,
then went through the left lung and finally cut through the heart and directly caused his
death. The accused was charged for murder under s302 of the Penal Code. The accused
raised the defence of intoxication by alleging that he and the deceased had consume
intoxicated drink and were drunk before they quarrel with each other. Counsel for the
accused submitted that voluntary or self-induced intoxication negates mens rea which is a
defense.

Held: The court held that the accused liable under s302 of the Penal Code. Under s86,
intoxication is an issue, the court has to determine whether the accused had the requisite
intent in the light of intoxication. It was shown that the accused has maintained his mental
faculty and was not acting as an intoxicated person. Although he had consumed alcohol
during the day, the accused was not so intoxicated that he did not know what he did or he
did not know what he did was wrong. Self-induced intoxication is not a defence under s85(a)
of the Penal Code. Therefore, the accused has failed, on the balance of probabilities, to
establish the defence of intoxication.
Public Prosecutor v. Aldwin Rojas Saz [2019] MLJU 565

Facts: In this case, the respondent was charged with murder under s302 of the Penal Code
for murdering his 8-year old son and also for injuring his wife with a dangerous weapon
under s304(b) of the Penal Code. The High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to
establish the prima facie case of murder but only succeeded in establishing prima facie
case of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s304(b) of
the Penal Code. The trial judge found that the respondent to be insane by reason of
intoxication from Methamphetamine use at the time he committed the act and rendered his
action against his own child become unintentional, without knowledge and with no motive.
The prosecution appealed against the judgment.

Held: No conviction should have been entered against the respondent for this offence and,
for that matter, the offence under s324 of the Penal Code notwithstanding the fact that he
pleaded guilty of the charges. He should have been acquitted of both the murder charge and
the charge under s324 of the Penal Code as his case falls under s85(2)(b) of the Penal
Code. The convictions therefore null and void.

(As a consequential order and pursuant to s348(1) of the CPC, the respondent should be
released from prison forthwith and thenceforth be kept in the safe custody of Hospital Mesra
Bukit Padang Kota Kinabalu and report the case to Yang Di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah.)

Enthiran Rajoo v. PP [2015] 8 CLJ 503

Fact: Accused was charged for murder, under s. 302 of the Penal Code. The deceased
came to the accused's house and consumed alcohol together. The accused's daughter
testified that she was sleeping when she realised the deceased was lying next to her but he
did not molest her. The accused shouted at the deceased and the latter left her daughter's
room. Even though the daughter could not see what was happening, she heard the accused
scolding the deceased and a faint sound of an object being thrown. The next day, the
deceased's body was found in a dried-up ditch. Accused testified that the deceased tried to
rape his daughter and therefore he had hit the deceased using a hammer and later dumped
the deceased's body into the ditch. Trial court found the accused guilty and was sentenced
to death. The issue is whether defence of intoxication can be applied.

Held: Court of appeal dismissing appeal and affirming conviction and sentence of High
Court. Defence of intoxication under s. 85(2) of the Penal Code was devoid of any merit on
account that his state of intoxication was not forced upon him and upon the accused's
admission in cross-examination that he was no longer drunk at the time he found the
deceased on his daughter’s bed.