CD: Intoxication Flashcards
Intoxication
‘Intoxication’ covers the effects of alcohol, drugs and other substances. It’s not a defence per se, but can throw doubt on D’s ability to form the required mens rea for the offence committed.
The ‘defence’ is strongly based on public policy. We cannot usually punish someone who cannot form the MR, but this must be balanced with punishing people who commit crimes after becoming intoxicated.
2 main ways of identifying intoxication:
- voluntary
- involuntary
Voluntary intoxication
Where the D chooses to take a substance that they know can cause intoxication. In the case of drugs, the drug must be well known to cause unpredictability or aggressiveness.
In R v Bailey and R v Hardie, the CoA distinguished between ‘dangerous’ drugs and ‘none dangerous’ drugs:
- knowingly taking ‘dangerous’ would equate to voluntary intoxication
- taking ‘non dangerous’ drugs may count as voluntary intoxication but this depends on whether D understands the impact of drugs upon them
- voluntary intoxication can be a complete defence to specific intent crimes but will not be a defence to basic intent crimes
Involuntary intoxication
Where the D was unaware they were taking to intoxicating substance and claims they have been spiked. Also, subscription drugs may have unexpected or unforeseen effects on the D.
Can apply to basic and specific intent crimes.
Therefore:
- if D while involuntarily intoxicated did not form the MR, they are not guilty of the crime
- if D while involuntarily intoxicated did form the MR, they can be guilty of the crime
Intoxication - specific and basic intent crimes
Vol intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes. If the D is so intoxicated so as to be capable of forming the MR, they have a complete defence to specific intent crimes only.
If D is intoxicated but still has the intent to form the MR, they can be guilty of the offence. Similarly, a person who drinks to give themselves ‘courage’ to commit an offence will be guilty. A drunken intent is still an intent.
The rationale behind basic intent crimes and disallowing intoxication is based on:
- becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of action
- sufficient evidence of MR of basic intent (recklessly committed) crimes such as ABH or common assault
Reform for intoxication
The Law Commission published the report ‘Intoxication and Criminal Liability’ in 2009, where recommendations were made:
- references to specific and basic intent crimes should be abolished
- the distinction between vol and invol intoxication should be retained
- there should be a primary assumption that the D was not intoxicated and D should prove that they were
- a secondary presumption would be that the D was voluntarily intoxicated
- if D states that they were involuntarily intoxicated, they’d have to prove this
DPP v Beard
Definition
D must be completely incapable of forming the mens rea for the defence to apply
Attorney General for NI v Gallagher
Definition; Specific and basic intent
Mens rea was formed to kill his wife before the intoxication. ‘Dutch courage’ is no defence - a drunken intent is still an intent
DPP v Majewski
Voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes
D’s conviction for ABH was upheld due to his recklessness in getting intoxicated
R v Kingston
Involuntary intoxication
Despite the involuntary intoxication, D still knew what he was doing, he just couldn’t stop himself.
R v Coley
Voluntary intoxication
Due to the external factor (cannabis), it was a case of voluntary intoxication and no complete loss of control for automatism
R v Lipman
Specific and basic intent crimes
D lacked the MR for murder as it’s a specific intent crime, not basic intent
R v Sheehan and Moore
Specific and basic intent crimes
A drunken intent is still an intent. The burden of proving MR remains on the prosecution.
Intoxication plan
Definition - ‘Intoxication’ covers the effects of alcohol, drugs and other substances. It’s not a defence per se, but can throw doubt on D’s ability to form the required mens rea for the offence committed.
- The ‘defence’ is strongly based on public policy. We cannot usually punish someone who cannot form the MR, but this must be balanced with punishing people who commit crimes after becoming intoxicated. - DPP v Beard
2 main ways of identifying intoxication:
- voluntary
- involuntary
Voluntary intoxication:
Where the D chooses to take a substance that they know can cause intoxication. In the case of drugs, the drug must be well known to cause unpredictability or aggressiveness.
In R v Bailey and R v Hardie, the CoA distinguished between ‘dangerous’ drugs and ‘none dangerous’ drugs:
- knowingly taking ‘dangerous’ would equate to voluntary intoxication - R v Coley
- taking ‘non dangerous’ drugs may count as voluntary intoxication but this depends on whether D understands the impact of drugs upon them
- voluntary intoxication can be a complete defence to specific intent crimes but will not be a defence to basic intent crimes
Apply….
Involuntary intoxication:
Where the D was unaware they were taking to intoxicating substance and claims they have been spiked. Also, subscription drugs may have unexpected or unforeseen effects on the D.
Can apply to basic and specific intent crimes.
Therefore:
- if D while involuntarily intoxicated did not form the MR, they are not guilty of the crime
- if D while involuntarily intoxicated did form the MR, they can be guilty of the crime - R v Kingston
Apply….
Specific and basic intent crimes:
Vol intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes. If the D is so intoxicated so as to be capable of forming the MR, they have a complete defence to specific intent crimes only. - R v Lipman
If D is intoxicated but still has the intent to form the MR, they can be guilty of the offence. Similarly, a person who drinks to give themselves ‘courage’ to commit an offence will be guilty. A drunken intent is still an intent. - Attorney General for NI v Gallagher, R v Sheehan and Moore
The rationale behind basic intent crimes and disallowing intoxication is based on:
- becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of action
- sufficient evidence of MR of basic intent (recklessly committed) crimes such as ABH or common assault - DPP v Majewski
Apply…….
Reform for intoxication:
The Law Commission published the report ‘Intoxication and Criminal Liability’ in 2009, where recommendations were made:
- references to specific and basic intent crimes should be abolished
- the distinction between vol and invol intoxication should be retained
- there should be a primary assumption that the D was not intoxicated and D should prove that they were
- a secondary presumption would be that the D was voluntarily intoxicated
- if D states that they were involuntarily intoxicated, they’d have to prove this
Apply….
Conclusion - if D involuntarily intoxicated for a specific intent crime, the ‘defence’ of intoxication is available.
