Criminal Law - Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter and Intoxication

Question 1

Explain how intoxication comes into two forms?

Answer 1

1) As a way to remove the mens rea for murder
- D can use evidence of intoxication to show they did not form the necessary mens rea for murder
- Prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D has committed AR and MR, if D didn’t have the mens rea, D can be acquitted

2) Influencing factor on the special defence of loss of control and diminishing responsibility
- If D is intoxicated, special defences can still be potentially argued - intoxication can mean with drugs or alcohol.

Question 2

Explain intoxication and loss of control?

Answer 2

If a sober individual in the defendant’s circumstances, with normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint might have behaved in the same way as the the defendant confronted by the relevant qualifying trigger, he would not be deprived of the loss of control defence just because he was not sober.

• Loss of control must be approached without reference to intoxication
• Would a reasonable man, who was not intoxicated, have acted in the same way as D?
• Intoxication ignored (as a circumstances whose only relevance to D’s conduct is that it bears on D’s general capacity for tolerance for self-restraint), if it has no connection to the things said or done which make up the qualifying trigger.
• If there is a connection between the things said or done which make up the qualifying trigger, e.g. when the defendant is taunted about his intoxication, then the jury can take that intoxication into account in assessing the gravity of the qualifying trigger.

Question 3

What is the effect of Alcohol Dependency Syndrome?

Answer 3

Was ADS a significant factor in leading D to consume alcohol even if there was an element of voluntary choice either to start drinking or not to stop at some point.

If significant factor, can conclude that D’s responsibility was impaired as a result of ADS.

First, jury must be satisfied that there was an abnormality of mental functioning.

Second, if the jury are satisfied that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality, they then need to be satisfied that this arises from a recognised medical condition. If there is clear evidence of ADS, then this requirement is likely to be satisfied. Any attempt to rely on voluntary and temporary drunkenness, even when based on habitual heavy binge drinking, will not be sufficient.

Third, under the old law, the Court of Appeal directed that the jury must consider whether the ADS substantially impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility.
a) the extent and seriousness of the defendant’s dependency;
b) the extent to which his ability to control his drinking was reduced;
c) whether he was capable of abstinence and if so;
d) for how long; and
e) whether he was choosing for some particular reason (such as a birthday) to decide to get drunk or to drink more than usual.

If the defendant’s AMF arises from the ADS:
D must have an AMF-at the time of the killing due to ADS, factors to be taken into account include the extent and severity of the ADS.
AMF must arise from a recognised medical condition-the alcohol dependency syndrome.

Question 4

Intoxication and diminished responsibility?

Answer 4

Independent of the abnormality

*If the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the killing, the jury should then ask themselves has the defendant satisfied you that, despite the drink,

(1) he was suffering from mental abnormality; and
(2) his mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts?’

Note that, in these circumstances, the jury may still find that the defence operates, even if they consider that the alcohol may have played a part in the defendant’s inability to do one of the factors in the HA 1957, s 2(1A).