Botha, RindaViljoen, Marina2015-08-122015-08-122013-12http://hdl.handle.net/11660/831English: A person commits an offense if there is behavior on his part that matches all the elements set out in the definition of the crime, such conduct is unlawful and accompanied by the necessary culpability. Thus a person's actions have to comply with the elements of a crime namely legality, conduct, causation, unlawfulness, criminal capacity and culpability. Alcohol can influence a person in different ways for example even excluding a person's criminal capacity or culpability. The problem now arises as to how criminal liability is affected by the intake of alcohol and how the defence of voluntary intoxication should be dealt with in our law. Before the case of Chretien it was not possible to raise the defense of voluntary intoxication. After the decision in Chretien the legal position regarding the defence was as follows: 1. If a person is so intoxicated that he can not act voluntarily then he can not be convicted of any crime; 2. It is possible in extreme circumstances that a person's criminal capacity can be excluded which leads to him also not being criminally liable for any crime; 3. Intoxication can even exclude general intent. The public was not satisfied with the outcome of the Chretien judgment and demanded that a less lenient approach be followed. The Legislature intervened and promulgated the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1 of 1988. The most important changes to the position regarding the defense of voluntary intoxication after the commencement of this Act can be summarized as follows: 1. When the accused is so intoxicated that he could not perform a voluntary act, in terms of the Chretien descission, he can not be found guilty on the main charge. He will however be guilty of contravening section 1 of Act 1 of 1988; 2. When the accused is so intoxicated that his criminal capacity is excluded he will also in terms of the Chretien decision not be found guilty on the main charge, but he will be guilty of contravening section 1 of Act 1 of 1988. 3. When the accused is intoxicated enough to exclude his intention but not his criminal capacity, he will in terms of the Chretien descision not be found guilty of the intent-crime. He will also not be guilty of contravening section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 because this situation is not covered in the wording of the Act. However, if he is accused of a crime that requires intent and his intoxication excludes such intent, he can still be found guilty on an alternative charge that only requires negligence. 4. An accused's intoxication will not exclude his culpability where the element required to prove is negligence. Instead an accused's intoxication can be used to prove his negligence. Even after commencement of Act 1 of 1988 there are still many loopholes in our law concerning the defence of voluntary intoxication. The approach of both Canada and Australia are studied in this research with the objective of comparing their respective positions with the approach to the defence followed in South-African law and making suggestions on how to improve our law.Afrikaans: lemand pleeg 'n misdaad indien daar gedrag aan sy kant is wat ooreenstem met die elemente uiteengesit in die omskrywing van die misdaad, sodanige gedrag wederregtelik is en met skuld gepaardgaan. Dus moet 'n persoon se gedrag aan al die misdaad-elemente naamlik legaliteit, handeling, kousaliteit, wederregtelikheid, toerekeningsvatbaarheid en skuld voldoen. Alkohol beinvloed 'n persoon op verskillende maniere, byvoorbeeld dit kan 'n persoon se toerekeninqsvatbaartieid of skuld uitsluit. Die probleem ontstaan nou oor hoe die invloed van alkohol strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid affekteer en hoe die verweer van vrywillige dronkenskap in ons reg aanwending moet vind. Voor die saak van Chretien was dit nie moontlik om die verweer van vrywillige dronkenskap te opper teen 'n misdaad wat slegs algemene opset vereis het nie. Na die Chretien-beslissing sien die verweer van vrywillige dronkenskap as volg daaruit: 1. As 'n persoon so dronk is dat hy nie willekeurig kan handel nie kan hy nie aan enige misdaad skuldig bevind word nie; 2. In uitsonderlike gevalle kan 'n persoon as gevolg van sy uitermatige dronkenskap heeltemal ontoerekeningsvatbaar wees en dus ook glad nie strafregtelik aanspreeklik wees nie; 3. Dronkenskap kan selfs ook gewone opset uitsluit. Die publiek was ontevrede met die beslissing in Chretien en het ge-eis dat 'n minder toegeeflike benadering gevolg moet word. Die Wetgewer het toe ingegryp en die Strafregwysigingswet 1 van 1988 gepromulgeer. Die grootste ontwikkeling in die posisie rondom dronkenskap na hierdie Wet se inwerkingtreding kan as volg opgesom word: 1. Wanneer die beskuldigde so dronk is dat hy nie vrywillig handel nie sal hy in terme van Chretien nie skuldig bevind kan word aan die hoofklag teen hom nie, maar sal hy wel skuldig bevind kan word aan oortreding van artikel 1 van Wet 1 van 1988; 2. Wanneer die beskuldigde so dronk is dat hy nie toerekeningsvatbaar is nie sal hy ook in terme van Chretien nie skuldig bevincl kan word aan die hoofklag teen horn nie, maar sal hy wel skuldig bevind kan word aan oortreding van artikel 1 van Wet 1 van 1988; 3. Wanneer die beskuldigde nie dronk genoeg is om ontoerekeningsvatbaar te wees nie, maar dronk genoeg is om nie opset te kan vorm nie, sal hy in terme van die Chretien-saak nie skuldig bevind kan word aan die opsetsmisdaad nie. Hy sal oak nie skuldig bevind kan word aan oortreding van artikel 1 van Wet 1 van 1988 nie, omdat die situasie nie in die bewoording van die Wet gedek word nie. Wanneer die beskuldigde egter aangekla word van 'n misdaad wat skuld in die vorm van opset vereis en sy dronkenskap sy opset uitsluit, kan hy nogsteeds skuldig bevind word aan 'n alternatiewe nalatigheidsmisdaad waarvan die elemente bewys kan word. 4. Wanneer 'n beskuldigde aangekla word van "n misdaad waarvan die skuld element in die vorm van nalatigheid vereis word en die beskuldigde bewys word dronk te gewees het terwyl hy die misdaad gepleeg het, sal die dronkenskap nie die beskuldigde se nalatigheid kan uitskakel nie. Inteendeel, die dronkenskap sal gebruik kan word om juis die aanwesigheid van nalatigheid te bewys. Na inwerkingtreding van Wet 1 van 1988 bestaan daar dus nog leemtes in die reg wat die verweer van dronkenskap betref. In hierdie navorsing word die posisies in Kanada en Australis bestudeer ten einde dit met die posisie van Suid-Afrika te vergelyk en moontlike voorstelle vir verbetering van ens reg veer te Ie.afAct 1 of 1988S v ChretienSection 33.1 of the Canadian Criminal CodeS v JohnsonVoluntary intoxicationCulpabilityLoopholesNon-pathological criminal incapacityStatutory intoxicationBurden of proofDrunkeness (Crime) -- Law and legislationDrinking of alcoholic beveragesAlcoholism and crimeCriminal lawDissertation (LL.M. (Criminal and Medical Law))--University of the Free State, 2013DissertationUniversity of the Free State