ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Intoxication and Criminal Offences (NSW)
Intoxication is sometimes thought to be a criminal defence. Rather than a defence as such, intoxication by alcohol or drugs is a factor that is sometimes taken into account when assessing whether an accused had the requisite intent to commit a criminal offence. Whether evidence of a person’s intoxication can be taken into account at trial depends on the offence in question. It also depends on whether the accused person became intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily.
What is voluntary intoxication?
Voluntary intoxication is when a person chooses to consume alcohol or to take drugs of their own free will.
What is involuntary intoxication?
Involuntary intoxication is when a person is forced or tricked into consuming drugs or alcohol. This may occur because they are threatened if they do not consume alcohol or drugs, when they are tricked into taking drugs (eg drink spiking), or when they are affected by the unforeseen side-effects of a prescription drug.
Offences of specific intent
An offence of specific intent is an offence that involves intentionally causing a specific result. An example of such an offence this is stealing. To be found guilty of stealing, an accused must be proven to have intended to take something that belonged to someone else and to keep it permanently.
When dealing with an offence of specific intent, courts may take into account evidence that at the tiem of the offending the accused was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol in determining whether they formed the intent required for the offence to be made out. The effect that alcohol or drugs had on the accused’s state of mind is one factor that the court may consider when assessing this. The accused’s intoxication is not relevant to assessing any other aspect of the matter.
A person may be acquitted of an offence that requires specific intent if their intoxication was such that they were unable to form such an intent.
However, Section 428C of the Crimes Act 1900 states that an accused’s state of intoxication cannot be taken into account if they:
- formed a specific intent to commit the offence prior to getting intoxicated; or
- became intoxicated in order to strengthen their resolve to commit the offence.
Intoxication and other offences
Offences that do not require the accused to have had a specific intent are those where the offender can be found guilty even if they did not intend to cause a specific result. When someone is charged with an offence that does not require specific intent, evidence of their intoxication is not relevant to determining whether the offence is made out beyond a reasonable doubt.
Intoxication and the reasonable person test
In a situation where the court has to apply the reasonable person test, the reasonable person is a person who is not intoxicated.
For example, where someone commits an act of violence and advances the defence of self-defence, the court must assess whether a reasonable person in their situation would have considered it necessary to do what they did in self-defence.
In this situation, if the accused was intoxicated, the jury may take into account their intoxication when assessing whether their belief that it was necessary to act as they did was reasonable. However, when deciding what would have been a reasonable response, it is not permitted to take into account the accused’s intoxication. It must instead consider what a reasonable sober person would have done in the accused’s situation as he or she (drunkenly) perceived it.
The question of how much significance ought to attach to a person’s intoxication when determining their criminal responsibility is far from settled. A number of problems with the criminal law’s current approach to intoxication have been highlighted, including:
- Legislation lacks a comprehensive definition of ‘intoxication’;
- Courts often have to assess an accused’s level of intoxication based on limited evidence, usually relying on the accused’s own estimate of how much alcohol was consumed;
- Expert evidence about effects of alcohol or drugs is usually not adduced;
The effects of intoxication are considered a matter of ‘common knowledge’, based on the assumption that jurors have personal experience of this. This is a problematic line of reasoning, particularly when applied to drugs other than alcohol, as only a minority of Australians have used illicit drugs.
In the last few years, intoxication has been much discussed in relation to the exercise of police powers, punishment and criminal responsibility. As a result, more and more attention is being paid to how the criminal law deals with intoxication and how it balances the need to hold people responsible for their actions with the principle that a person should only be held accountable for acts that they did voluntarily.
If you require legal advice or representation in a criminal law matter or in any other legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
In New South Wales, a person accused of murder can use extreme provocation as a ‘partial defence’. If a person…
A criminal defence is an argument used to justify the actions of a person charged with a criminal offence. A…
The Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) was assented to in June 2020 and will replace the…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth