Defences: Intoxication & Self-Defence Flashcards
when can intoxication be argued? how does this operate?
Intoxication will only give rise to a defence if it results in a loss of capacity to form the mens rea.
therefore, this isn’t a ‘defence in the strict sense. It is actually the case that the prosecution can’t prove the mens rea
re: intoxication
give an example
o i.e. drugged intent is still intent. If they intended to satisfy the actus reus even if they were intoxicated this will not give rise to a defence
re: intoxication
what are specific intent crimes? what is their relationship to intoxication?
give examples
i.e. offences where the mens rea is intention only
Examples:
o Murder
o S18 GBH
o Theft
It is easier to argue the intoxication defence for specific intent crimes
re: intoxication
what are basic intent crimes? what is their relationship to intoxication?
give examples
i.e. offences where the mens rea is less than intent (i.e. recklessness)
Examples:
o Unlawful act manslaughter
o All other assaults
o Criminal damage
o Sexual offences (this has been categories as basic intent for policy reasons i.e. to reduce the availability of the defence)
re: intoxication
what is the position regarding voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes?
the defence of intoxication will not be available
this is because D’s conduct in itself in getting intoxicated is reckless
re: intoxication
what is the position regarding voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?
may be available if they were so intoxicated they did not have the mens rea to commit the crime
the reason for this is because crimes of specific intent require intention, they cannot be committed recklessly.
re: intoxication
what can happen even if D is found NG after successfully pleading voluntary intoxication?
give an example
even if D is found not guilty of a specific intent crime, they will usually be guilty of an alternative basic intent offence
i.e. not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter (which is a basic intent offence)
re: intoxication
explain dutch courage
- If D has become deliberately intoxicated to negate the mens rea, they will not be able to rely on the defence of intoxication
re: intoxication
explain voluntary intoxication and mistake
give an example
A mistaken belief caused by voluntary intoxication can never be relied upon by D
example:
D (wrongly believes due to being intoxicated) that she is about to be assaulted to acts in self-defence:
o The defence of self-defence will fail where D’s mistaken belief is induced by voluntary intoxication
o D may only rely on self-defence if their reaction did not exceed that of a sober person in the same situation
re: intoxication
what does P need to prove for voluntary intoxication?
If P can prove that D had the mens rea for the relevant offence, intoxication will not operate as a defence
NB: intoxication is never a defence for basic intent crimes, even if D lacked the mens rea.
re: intoxication
explain voluntary intoxication and the defence of ‘lawful excuse’
- Lawful excuse is the defence in relation to criminal damage
- The mens rea is that D honestly believed the owner did or would have consented to the damage had they known the circumstances.
- The belief only needs to be genuinely held and as such it is irrelevant if D formed that view whilst intoxicated
re: involuntary intoxication
what are the key questions for the court?
o Was D’s intoxication involuntary?
o If so, did D also lack the necessary mens rea for the crime?
re: involuntary intoxication
how is this different to voluntary intoxication?
it doesn’t matter whether the crime is of basic or specific intent
re: involuntary intoxication
when might someone be involuntary intoxicated?
if they have been spiked or had an adverse reaction to medication
re: involuntary intoxication
if someone has voluntarily taken medication and had an adverse reaction, what is the question for the court?
give an example
‘was is reckless for D to take the medication?’
example:
D took his girlfriend’s Valium and started a fire. He was found not to be reckless because he was told by his girlfriend it would be harmless. However, there may be other instances where D takes medication prescribed for someone else without consulting a doctor and it will be reckless.
re: involuntary intoxication
explain the MR element of this test
what is something to look for in a fact pattern?
- If there is clear evidence of the mens rea they will not be able to rely on the defence
- In other words, even if the are involuntarily intoxicated but have the mens rea, they cannot rely on the defence
if someone ‘blacked out’ they would unlikely have the required MR
re: self-defence
when can this be argued?
it is a general defence that can be argued in relation to any offence
re: self-defence
when can D use the defence?
D has a defence if he uses reasonable force to:
o Defend himself
o Defence others
o Defend property
o Prevent crime
o Assist with lawful arrest
re: self-defence
what are the limbs to this defence?
o Was is necessary to use force? (subjective)
o Was the amount of force used reasonable? (objective)
re: self-defence
explain the evidential burden
- D has the evidential burden to discharge. They do not have to prove the defence, but they must raise it at trail.
- P must then disprove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt. If they fail to do so, D will be acquitted.
re: self-defence
explain ‘Was it necessary to use force?’
- D’s actions must have been necessary to defend themselves or another from attack of to prevent the commission of a criminal offence
o This is subjective, i.e. did D believe it was necessary to use the force
- D cannot rely on the defence is they used force out of revenge or retaliation
re: self-defence
explain ‘Was it necessary to use force?’ in relation to a mistaken belief
o D will be judged on the facts as they honestly believed them to be, even if they are mistaken that the use of force was necessary
o This will apply even if D’s belief was unreasonable
o However, if D’s mistake was unreasonable, the jury may believe that the belief was not honestly held
re: self-defence
explain mistake and intoxication
voluntary > mistake that force was necessary = self-defence not allowed
involuntary > mistake that force was necessary = self-defence allowed
re: self-defence
what is considered when determining ‘was the amount of force used was reasonable’? what type of test is this?
This is an objective test for the judge/jury
They will consider the reasonableness of the force in the circumstances as D honestly believed to exist
