Chapter 11: General defences - intoxication

Question 1

What is the D claiming when raising intoxication?

Answer 1

• D is claiming he did not have MR for the offence charged
• D can only consider the law of intoxication can only rely on the defence if an only if it can be established that the D was intoxicated enough to consider the defence

Question 2

What are the 2 types of intoxication

Answer 2

Voluntary intoxication
Involuntary intoxication

Question 3

What is voluntary intoxication a good and bad defence for? What is the case that deploys this?

Answer 3

Good defence - specific intent crime

Bad defence - basic intent crime

Case

• DPP v Beard [1920]
• DPP v Majewski

Question 4

What are the 3 examples of voluntary intoxication?

Answer 4

1. Taking alcohol or drugs willingly
2. Taking alcohol without knowledge of its full strength (R v Allen [1988])
3. Knowingly consuming medically prescribed drugs in excess of prescribed drugs

Question 5

What is the exceptional case to involuntary intoxication?

Answer 5

Groark [1999]

• “A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent”
• Meaning a person who is drunk may still have intent
  Involuntary intoxication

Question 6

What is a good defence and bad defence for involuntary intoxication? What is the case that employs this idea?

Answer 6

Involuntary intoxication is a good defence for both, basic intent and specific intent crimes are

case

• DPP v Beard
• DPP v Majewski

Question 7

What is the exceptional case to involuntary intoxication?

Answer 7

R v Kingston [1993]

Facts

1. D was a pedophile, who was sent to court for rehabilitation. And was fine after a while
2. He assaulted a young boy
3. Said that it was because of the drugs that the 3rd party gave him

Held

1. HOL agreed with the appeal from the prosecution, that the D had the knowledge/was knowing that it happened

He knew that he was intoxicated, meaning there was knowledge

Question 8

What are the 5 examples of involuntary intoxication?

Answer 8

1. D is forced to consume drink or drugs
2. D’s drink is laced or spiked
3. D entirely mistakes what he is consuming
4. D consumes soporific drugs (non-dangerous drugs)
5. Taking medically prescribed drugs in the dosage prescribed by the doctor

Question 9

What is the case where the D consumed a sporific drug?

Answer 9

R v Hardie [1984]

Facts

1. D took sleeping medicine as he wanted to sleep. Instead of sleeping, he became aggressive and violent, and went on to destroy certain properties

Held

1. Court ruled that him taking the sleeping medicine was involuntary intoxication which gave him a good defence
2. However, it must be appreciated on the facts that although the taking of the medicine was voluntary, the effect turned to be involuntary

Takeaway

1. The taking of the drugs were voluntary
2. But the effect was involuntary
3. Remember R v Bailey - where if the D did not know the effect of the insulin, then it would be valid defence

Question 10

What is dutch courage? Is dutch courage a good defence?

Answer 10

If alcohol or drugs are taken for ‘Dutch courage’ there is no defence

Question 11

What is the case that supports this principles for dutch courage?

Answer 11

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]

Facts

1. D intended to kill his wife and brought a knife and a bottle of whisky
2. He drank the whisky and then killed her
3. Pleaded insanity or in the alternative intoxication as to negate the requisite mens rea of intention

Held

1. Lord Denning - “If a man, whilst sane and sober, forms an intention to kill and makes preparation for it, knowing it is a wrong thing to do, and then gets himself drunk so as to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing, and whilst drunk carries out his intention, he cannot rely on this self-induced drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder, nor even as reducing it to manslaughter.”