- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Stubbs (1989) CA
Case Overview
Case Overview
- Case Name: Stubbs (1989)
- Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
- Parties: D (Defendant) vs. V (Victim)
- Facts: D stabbed V during a fight outside a pub.
- Initial Charge: Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- Note: Section 18 typically requires specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
- Defendant's Offer: Plead guilty to the lesser offence of Section 20 of the Act.
- Note: Section 20 typically requires intent or recklessness as to causing some harm.
- Grounds for Lesser Plea: D claimed he was intoxicated at the time and could not remember what he had done.
- Implicit Defence: Voluntary intoxication negating specific intent for Section 18.
- Key Quote: "A defence of drunkenness really requires to be very extreme before it should be allowed to influence the Crown to say they will accept a plea to s 20."
- Application to Case: The plea to Section 20 should not have been accepted by the prosecutor in this case.
- Intoxication Defence: The court emphasizes that intoxication as a defence, particularly to reduce a charge from a specific intent offence (s.18) to a basic intent offence (s.20), must be very extreme.
- Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecutors have a duty to carefully consider the degree of intoxication and its impact on intent when deciding whether to accept a lesser plea.
- Threshold for Acceptance: This case sets a high bar for accepting a plea bargain based on intoxication where specific intent is a key element of the higher charge.
- Voluntary Intoxication: While voluntary intoxication can negate specific intent (like for s.18), it generally cannot negate basic intent (like for s.20). The severity of the intoxication is crucial for reducing charges.
0 Comments