C8: Denials from liability

Question 1

Is intoxication a defence?

Answer 1

No, because it is a denial of liability, meaning the defendant is claiming that not all the elements of the offence can be established.

Question 2

What are the three prerequisites to the intoxication rules?

Answer 2

1. The defendant’s intoxication must be voluntary
2. The defendant must lack the required MR due to their intoxication.
3. The crime must be a crime of basic intent, not specific.

Question 3

When will intoxication be classed as voluntary?

Answer 3

When the defendant knowingly abuses alcohol, drugs or medication provided that they are generally known to be dangerous in the sense of leading to intoxication.

Question 4

Is there a denial of liability available to someone who takes sedative medication but becomes aggressive?

Answer 4

No, that would be a defence, because they are not taking a dangerous drug and would have no reason to believe that it would make them aggressive. This would mean they are involuntary intoxicated, because they were not reckless about whether the sedative would make them aggressive.

Question 5

Is a person voluntarily intoxicated or involuntarily intoxicated if they know they are ingesting a dangerous drug or alcohol, even though they underestimate its strength?

Answer 5

They are voluntarily intoxicated, because they still know they are ingesting a dangerous drug or alcohol.

Question 6

Can the defendant avoid liability by arguing that although they had the MR of the offence, they would not have formed it if they’d not been under the influence of the intoxicant?

Answer 6

No, they cannot. ‘Drunken intent is still an intent’.

Question 7

If the defendant stabbed someone in a pub intentionally whilst they were drunk, can they deny liability based on intoxication?

Answer 7

No, ‘drunken intent is still an intent’.

Question 8

Can a defendant deny liability based on intoxication if they had MR before the crime, but then got drunk to get Dutch courage to commit the act and therefore lacked it at the time of the crime?

Answer 8

No, they cannot. Even though the AR and MR don’t coincide in time, the court believed that the MR coupled with the AR which he intended to do makes them guilty.

Question 9

Can the defendant escape liability for a specific intent crime due to intoxication?

Answer 9

Yes, but they will often still be convicted of a basic intent crimes (where recklessness can satisfy the MR of the crime).

Question 10

What is the difference between a specific intent crime and a basic intent crime?

Answer 10

Specific intent: offences of specific intent are those which have intention as their mens rea. For example, murder.
Basic intent: crimes of basic intent are those for which the mens rea element can be satisfied by recklessness. For example, assault.

Question 11

What is an example of a specific intent crime that can’t be degraded to a basic intent offence?

Answer 11

Theft.

Question 12

What is the case that drew a clear distinction between basic and specific intent offences? What did it state?

Answer 12

Majeswski [1977]: where it was held that crimes the MR of which can be satisfied by recklessness should be regarded as basic intent offences whereas crimes the MR of which can only be established by an intention should be classified as specific intent offences

Question 13

What type of case would the Majeswski rule not apply in basic intent crimes?

Answer 13

In crimes in negligence, suhc as GNM, because there is not requirement of recklessness.

Question 14

Would the Majeswki rule apply to basic intent crime acts committed by accident?

Answer 14

Yes, it would apply. E,g,In Brady [2006], the defendant, who had been drinking all evening at a night club, climbed onto the railings of a gallery overlooking the dance floor. He fell onto the victim, causing her serious injury. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s deliberate conduct in getting heavily drunk and his voluntarily sitting in a precarious position on the gallery were reckless. The fact that the actual fall was accidental did not negate his liability under the rule from Majewski. The defendant was convicted under s20 OAPA 1861 (a basic intent crime). Any recklessness ordinarily needed to prove the s20 offence was not needed, as the defendant had already demonstrated sufficient recklessness before he fell.

Question 15

What presumption does Majewski imply?

Answer 15

A presumption of recklessness. If the defendant is drunk, then they are reckless.

Question 16

What does the presumption of recklessness in Majewski clash with?

Answer 16

It clashes with s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967, which requires a jury to examine all the evidence before deciding whether the defendant foresaw the result.

Question 17

Can the rules of intoxication apply when the defendant is not intoxicated at the time of the incident, but has been around the time?

Answer 17

No, it must have happened at the time of the incident. Taj [2018] accidentally expanded this to mean that drug related intoxication (e.g. paranoia) can be considered as intoxication when the victim wasn’t on drugs at the time.

Question 18

What is the rule about when an involuntarily intoxicated individual commits a crime with intent?

Answer 18

It is that a ‘drunken intent is still an intent’ Consequently, if the defendant has completed the AR of the offence with the required MR, then they will be liable for that crime regardless of their intoxication.

Question 19

What would happen if the involuntarily intoxicated person did not have the MR for the crime?

Answer 19

They may have a complete defence regardless of the type of crime, whether basic or specific intent.

Question 20

Explain why Kingston [1994] is important to the rule that involuntarily intoxicated defendants could still be liable for the crime?

Answer 20

Kingston [1994], in which the defendant, who had paedophiliac tendencies, intentionally committed an indecent assault upon a 15-year-old boy after his coffee had been surreptitiously laced with a drug. Despite the defendant’s inability to remember the offence and his claim that he had always kept his sexual inclinations under control until that night, the House of Lords held that involuntary intoxication was no defence. The defendant may not have been morally to blame for the loss of his inhibitions, but the criminal law was not concerned with moral blame. It was concerned with AR and MR. If both can be proved, the defendant has no defence. The same rules apply where the defendant has taken a substance under duress.

Question 21

Can the private or public defence of self-defence apply when the defendant has made a mistake due to being voluntarily intoxicated?

Answer 21

No, where the defendant became drunk and because of this the defendant mistakenly believed that the use of force was necessary, the defendant could not rely on the defence even if their belief was honestly held and one that a reasonable person would have held.

Question 22

What is ‘prior fault intoxication’? When does it apply?

Answer 22

When the defendant’s voluntary intoxication can be a substitute type of mens rea. This only applies if the crime is one of basic intent. This can be seen in instances of crimes of recklessness.