Criminal Law 6 Defences - Intoxication

Question 1

In what 2 ways can the defence of intoxication work?

Answer 1

• negate the mens rea of an offence
• influencing factor on another legal principle/defence

Question 2

When can intoxication operate to negate the mens rea?

Answer 2

Any crime where:
- involuntarily taken
- medical treatment taken voluntarily
- non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily
(But only when intoxication negates men’s rea)
- specific intent needed (i.e. offence can’t be committed recklessly)

Question 3

What does not count as involuntary intoxication?

Answer 3

Where D is aware they’re drinking alcohol but mistaken as to its strength

Question 4

If someone was voluntary intoxicated by dangerous drugs/alcohol, and committed a specific intent crime, is intoxication defence available?

Answer 4

Yes: ask if D still formed the necessary mens rea?

Question 5

If someone was voluntarily intoxicated by dangerous drugs/alcohol and committed a basic intent crime, is intoxication defence available?

Answer 5

Less likely: ask would D have seen the risk if sober

E.g.
- throwing stones would have realised risk if sober - no defence
- smashed window because tripped when drunk - defence

Question 6

How do intoxication and self-defence interact?

Answer 6

drunken mistake as to need for self-defence doesn’t count

Question 7

How does intoxication interact with loss of control defence?

Answer 7

Loss of control defence cannot be approached with reference to intoxication
- But, if D is taunted as to his intoxication, can take it into account when consider gravity of qualifying trigger
- If D is addicted, this characteristic given to normal person test but normal person still has normal levels of tolerance/self-restraint and is sober

Question 8

How does intoxication interact with diminished responsibility?

Answer 8

Depends on if the intoxication is:
a) independent of abnormality
b) as a result of ADS

Question 9

If intoxication is independent of mental abnormality, what is asked?

Answer 9

If despite intoxication,
- suffering from mental abnormality
AND
- mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility

Question 10

If intoxication is a result of ADS, what is considered?

Answer 10

• Whether ADS led D to drink, even if there was an element of choice
• If it was, D’s responsibility was impaired.

(Attempts to rely on voluntary/temporary drunkenness even if based on habitual binge drinking, is not sufficient)