17/06/1986

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (INFERIOR)

AGIUS CARMEL A.

THE POLICE (INSPECTOR JOHN MIFSUD) vs BASSLER BEAT JORG

N/A

-

N/A

"DEALING" IN A DANGEROUS DRUG - CONCURRENT OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT - DANGEROUS DRUGS ORDINANCE - INTOXICATION - REQUEST TO INJECT HEROIN

Section 35(4) of the Criminal Code must not be taken in conjunction with defences raised by virtue of section 35(2)(a)(b). Although a person may be found not to have been capable of forming a specific intent in respect of another crime, or of forming a generic intent, depending on the influence ofalcohol on the particular person charged with the commission of the offence. The fact that the accused was asked by others to inject them with heroin does not in any way exulpate him. It is not appellant that has to prove that owing to his acute intoxication he was unable to form a specific or generic intent. The burden of proof of the guilt of the accused and therefore of the existence of thenecessary formal element rests with the prosecution. "Dealing" for the purposes of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance means all sort of dealings, even those of a gratuitous nature. For the provision of section 19(h) to be applied it is not necessary that there should be a specific request or plea to that effect by the accused.