Defences - Intoxication

Question 1

R v Pordage [1975]

Defences

Intoxication

Negate Mens Rea

Answer 1

The issue is whether defendant formed the mens rea, not whether he was capable of forming the mens rea.

Question 2

R v Kingston [1995]

Defences

Intoxication

Negate Mens Rea

Answer 2

Court must distinguish between lack of mens rea and release of inhibitions. A drunken intent is still an intent.

Paedophile; drugged

Question 3

When can intoxication operate to negate the Mens Rea?

Answer 3

• Any crime where the intoxication is caused by drink or drugs taken involuntarily, i.e. spiking
• Any crime where the intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily, but for medical treatment
• Any crime where the intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily
• In crimes where a specific intent is required

Question 4

R v Allen [1988]

Involuntary Intoxication

Defences

Answer 4

Mere ignorance of strength of a drink taken voluntarily doesn’t make the consequence of the intoxication anything less than voluntary.

Question 5

DPP v Majewski [1977]

Voluntary Intoxication

Defences

Answer 5

Where the intoxication is voluntary, the defence of intoxication will depend on whether specific intent crimes or basic intent crimes.

Question 6

Crimes of Specific Intent

Intoxication

Defences

Answer 6

Crimes that cannot be committed recklessly and require intention for mens rea.

Intoxication CAN be used as a defence to show the defendant didn’t form the mens rea

Question 7

Crimes of Basic Intent

Intoxication

Defences

Answer 7

Crimes that can be committed recklessly and do not require intention.

Possible to use intoxication to show the defendant didn’t form the mens rea

Question 8

Establishing whether voluntary intoxication negates mens rea

Method 1

R v Majewski

Defences

Answer 8

He was reckless in getting drunk, therefore the mens rea is proven.

• Allan – 3 difficulties with this
  
  • No coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
  • Can’t use ‘reckless’ in isolation – should be specific to mens rea of that crime
  • Doesn’t comply with s8 CJA 1967 – jury must examine all evidence before deciding whether defendant has mens rea

Question 9

Establishing whether voluntary intoxication negates mens rea

Method 1

R v Coley, McGhee and Harris

Defences

Answer 9

The jury will be asked if D would have seen the risk had he been sober.

This is now the direction given by the Judicial Studies Board Crown Court Book

R v Coley, McGhee and Harris - approved this direction

Question 10

R v Hardie [1985]

Intoxication

Non Dangerous Drugs

Defences

Answer 10

Intoxication from ‘non dangerous drugs’ may be a defence to basic intent crimes as well as specific intent crimes

Was D reckless in taking the drug? If so, can’t be used as a defence.