Puckeridge v The Queen

In *Puckeridge v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Puckeridge, against his conviction for the offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The applicant had been found guilty in the District Court of South Australia and his appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was dismissed.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the issue of intoxication. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the jury was entitled to consider evidence of the applicant's intoxication as a defence to the charge, notwithstanding that the intoxication was self-induced.

The High Court, comprising Gleeson CJ and Hayne J, held that self-induced intoxication, whether by alcohol or drugs, could not be relied upon as a defence to a criminal charge where the mental element of the offence required proof of intention or knowledge. Their Honours reasoned that the common law principle established in cases such as *DPP v Beard* [1920] AC 479, which allowed for intoxication to negate criminal intent, was not applicable to offences where the mental element was recklessness or negligence. In this instance, the offence of driving under the influence required proof of the actus reus of driving whilst intoxicated, and the mens rea was satisfied by the voluntary act of consuming alcohol. Therefore, the jury's direction, which did not permit the jury to consider self-induced intoxication as a defence, was correct.

The appeal was dismissed.