Criminal law — Intoxication Flashcards
Allen
Intoxication remains voluntary even where D did not know the strength of alcohol or drugs.
N.B Where MR is former priory to intoxication the intoxication will be no defence
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
D decided to kill his wife. Bought whisky and knife. He got drunk, then killed his wife. Even though at the time he was unable to form the MR for murder (a specific offence), this had been formed prior to the alcohol. Dutch courage.
Burden of proof is on D to prove not only they were drinking but the degree to which they were impaired.
Who is the burden of proof on?
The D to prove not only they were drinking but the degree to which they were impaired.
When can intoxication be involuntary?
- D’s soft or alcoholic drink was spiked
- D takes drugs as prescribed by his doctor
- D takes a non-dangerous drug, although not prescribed, in a non-reckless way
Hardie
Taking dangerous drugs might be conclusive proof of recklessness. With non-dangerous drugs it shut be decided whether the taking itself was done recklessly. If it was then this will be voluntary intoxication.
Majewski
VOL/BASIC
Pleading voluntary intoxication to a crime of basic intent is akin to pleading guilty
Richardson & Irwin (1998)
VOL/BASIC
Students each drank 5 pints and indulged in “horseplay” — something they did regularly. V was lifted over a balcony and dropped at least 10ft, suffering serious injury.
The jury shuld consider whether each man would had sent he risk of injury had they been sober. The defendants were not hypothetical “reasonable men”, but “university students.”
Kingston
INVOL/BASIC
Where drugs dis-inhibit someone so that the defendant cannot resist their desire this is not sufficient for a defence.
Beard (1920)
If the drunken man is so drunk that he does not know what he s doing, he has a defence to any charge, such as murder, in which specific intent is essential but he is still liable to be convicted for manslaughter for which no specific intent is necessary
R v Sheehan and Moore
SPECIFIC/VOL
D’s in a drunken ate poured petrel onto a homeless man, lit it and killed him
Held: Key question was did they form intent, “drunk intent is still intent”
Where there is an alternative basic intent offence it can be left to the jury to decide if they have the necessary intent for that
R v Lipman
D and girlfriend took LSD. He killed her by forcing a bedsheet into her mouth (he thought he was fighting a snake) and as charged with murder and UA manslaughter.
Held: Not guilty of murder but of UAM as this is basic intent for which vol intoxication is not a defence.
R v O’Grady
Intoxicated mistakes are NOT okay for self defence.
In this case he was an alcoholic and had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol with his friends. He claims he went to sleep and that he had been woken by his friend hitting him in the head. They then fought in which the D lost the fight, made them food and went to sleep. It however, had been found that the friend was found dead in the morning. The V suffered from 20 wounds to his face, in addition to injuries to the hands and a fractured rib. There was severe bruising to the head, brain, neck and chest. There was a fracture of the spine caused by the head being forced backwards. There was a fractured rib. The blows to the body had been delivered by both sharp and blunt objects.
He went beyond what was reasonable and so this was not valid for self-defence.
