rules of intoxication apply. Drinking alcohol or taking dangerous
drugs, do not provide a defence for usual policy reasons.
R v Rodger & Rose  Dís claimed that they had been forced to
escape from prison because otherwise they would have been driven to commit
suicide as a result of the extreme depression they were suffering.
For the defence to apply, the "circumstances" had to be external to the
truly a logical distinction, however, or is it merely a policy
decision based on the peculiar facts of the case? In that respect, it
could show the courts reacting as they have done in "necessity" cases,
simply on a case-by-case basis.
in Rodger and Rose was firmly of the opinion that the subjective
approach was not appropriate here.
not consider that such a development of the law would be justified, nor
do we think that such an extension would be in the public interest. If
allowed it could amount to a licence to commit crime dependent on the
personal characteristics and vulnerability of the offender. As a matter
of policy that is undesirable and in our view it is not the law
and should not be the law"