Defences - Intoxication Flashcards
Pordage 1975
If D relies on intoxication then proof of mens rea is proof of guilt.
R v Kingston
Facts:
Barry Kingston was involuntarily drugged by a friend. While Kingston was intoxicated, his friend encouraged him to perform sexual acts on a 15 year old boy. The incident had been a set up by his friend. Kingston was convicted of indecent assault. Kingston’s defence was that if he had not been drugged, he would not have acted the way he did.
Issues:
Whether the necessary intent was present when the act was committed by Kingston, even when the defence of involuntary intoxication is available.
Held:
The Court found that although the drugs had essentially done away with Kingston’s inhibitions, this did not negative the necessary mental element which was found to be present in Kingston’s conduct.
Onus of proof is on the crown that the mens rea was present despite
Rule established in:
Sheehan (1975)
Questioned in
McKnight 2000
-> Old rule remains the authority
The general rule
Voluntary intoxication will only be a defence to specific intent crimes and involuntary intoxication will always provide a defence for basic and specific intent crimes.
It does not mean that these defences are automatically available.
The three questions to ask in order to consider the defence
- Is the defendant intoxicated (Kingston 1994)?
If not, the defence is not available, if yes move on to the next question. - Is the intoxication involuntary (Hardie 1985) or voluntary (Allen 1988)?, If involuntary, the defence is available.
If voluntary, move on to the next question - Is the offence one of basic or specific intent (Majewski 1977)? If basic intent, the defence is not available.
If specific intent the defence is available.
Involuntary intoxication
Involuntary = externally or not realizing that they will be intoxicating.
D must show that they could not form Mens Rea.
R v Kingston (1994)
- Drunken intent, is still intent
- Intent was formed before becoming intoxicated
R v Allen (1988)
- If the drink is too strong, but it was taken voluntarily, D is still guilty
(drugs with dangerous expectations)
R v Hardie (1985)
- The voluntary intoxication with an non-dangerous drug, that leads to an unexpected outcome will be taken as unintended.
(drugs with undangerous expectation)
Voluntary intoxication
is only a defence to specific intent crimes.
R v Allen
Intoxication remains voluntary if D isnt expecting the outcome from drug like alcohol, etc.
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)
Man intended to kill his wife, drunk a bottle of wine to build courage.
Was still guilty of murder (specific intent)
The defence is not available when the Mens Rea was there before the intoxication.
Lord Denning:
Lord Denning found that alcohol had not caused him a ‘disease of the mind’. Even though he was a psychopath, this was not brought on by drink. Gallagher was found to have committed murder as there was clear evidence of premeditation. The fact that he got drunk before the act and was drunk when committing it was only to provide him with a little ‘dutch courage’ required to commit murder.
R v Lipman (1969)
Man took LSD with his Girlfriend.
Killed her with bedsheets.
Did not convict with Murder, but with manslaughter.
How does intoxication work in conjunction with other defences?
General rule
If Insanity is mixed with intoxication - it can not be used as a defence - except for alcoholism
Automatism can not be used then intoxication is self induced
Self defence:
Making a mistake because of self induced alcohol renders it impossible to use self defence as defence.
R v Hatton (2005)
R v O´Grady (1987)
Intoxication
