Defence: Intoxication

Question 1

In order to use the defense of intoxication, what questions need to be asked?

Answer 1

1. Was the crime committed one of basic intent or specific intent?
2. Was the Defendant Intoxicated Voluntarily or Involuntarily?

Question 2

There are four kinds of intoxication acts. What are they?

Answer 2

Voluntary intoxication for specific intent crime
Voluntary intoxication for basic intent crime

Involuntary intoxication for specific intent crime
Involuntary intoxication for basic intent crime

Question 3

Voluntary intoxication for specific intent crime - cases and their rules for when the defense is and isn’t allowed

Answer 3

“Beard - ‘If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required” they cannot be charged for a specific intent crime
Sheehan & Moore

However, there is no defense where D has still formed the mens rea despite being intoxicated:

Gallagher - Dutch Courage
Coley

Question 4

Voluntary intoxication for basic intent crime - general rule and exceptions

Answer 4

The general rule here is: The defense is not allowed - getting intoxicated is intentional/reckless behavior, meaning the mens rea is satisfied through D getting drunk/taking drugs - Majewski

However, there are two exceptions to this:
	1. D would not have realized the risk if they was sober - Richardson
            2. D's intoxication is due to past intoxication leading to long term effects like dependency (alcoholism) or health issues caused by the past intoxication - Harris

Question 5

What can involuntary intoxication include?

Answer 5

Unexpected side effects of drugs taken under prescription

‘Sedative’ drugs which have an unexpected effect on D

D being spiked by others, without D’s knowledge

D being forced to drink under duress

Question 6

Involuntary intoxication for specific intent crime - the general rule

Answer 6

The defense is only allowed if D did not form the mens rea whilst intoxicated.

Even if they were not aware of their intoxicated state, if D did have the mens rea for the crime they will still be guilty - Kingston

Question 7

Involuntary intoxication for specific intent crime - cases and their rules

Answer 7

Hardie - defense allowed - Rule: This is to be treated as involuntary intoxication as D was not aware of the effect the drug would have on him

Question 8

Involuntary intoxication for basic intent crime - case

Answer 8

Here the defence is allowed.
As D was not intoxicated voluntarily, there is no recklessness to form the mens rea.
This was decided in Hardie 1985.

Question 9

Intoxicated Mistake - cases

Answer 9

If D is mistaken about a key fact because they are intoxicated, this can sometimes be taken into account by the jury:
R v Lipman 1970:
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76:
If D is mistaken as to the amount of force required when acting in self-defense due to voluntary intoxication, this cannot be used as a defense