R v Bourke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Rex v Bourke,[1] an important case in South African criminal law, the Transvaal Provincial Division (TPD) held that, under Roman-Dutch law, drunkenness is, as a general rule, no defence to a crime, although it may be a reason for mitigation of punishment. If the drunkenness is not voluntary—that is, if not caused by an act of the accused—and results in rendering the accused unconscious of what he was doing, he would not be responsible in law for an act done while in such a state. If constant drunkenness has induced a state of mental disease rendering the accused unconscious of his act at the time, he is not responsible and can be declared insane. Where a special intention is necessary to constitute a particular offence, drunkenness might reduce the crime from a more serious to a less serious one.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2021) |
R v Bourke | |
---|---|
Court | Transvaal Provincial Division |
Full case name | Rex v Bourke |
Decided | 11 May 1916 (1916-05-11) |
Citation | 1916 TPD 303 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Wessels, Curlewis and Gregorowski JJ |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Wessels J |
Keywords | |
Criminal law, Crime, Drunkenness, Excuse, Mitigation of sentence. |