Intoxication

Question 1

R v Kingston

Answer 1

Intoxication (voluntary or involuntary) is not a defence in itself, only if it causes the defendant to lack the relevant mens rea, not just if the defendant would not otherwise have committed the offence

Question 2

R v Allen

Answer 2

A defendant should still be considered ‘voluntarily intoxicated’ if they simply underestimated how much the alcohol was affecting them

Question 3

DPP v Majewski

Answer 3

Involuntary intoxication can be a defence to crimes of basic and specific intent, voluntary intoxication can only be a defence to crimes of specific intent

Question 4

R v Heard

Answer 4

All sexual offences are treated as crimes of basic intent, so voluntary intoxication does not serve as a defence to any sexual offences

Question 5

R v Lipman, DPP v Majewski

Answer 5

Even where voluntary intoxication serves as a defence to a crime of specific intent, the defendant will usually still be guilty of a lower offence of basic intent, such as a charge of murder becoming one of manslaughter

Question 6

R v Hardie

Answer 6

An individual who voluntarily takes a prescribed or non-dangerous drug and experiences unexpected side effects is considered to be involuntarily intoxicated

Question 7

Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 7

A defendant who voluntarily intoxicates himself in order to work up ‘Dutch courage’ to commit an offence, and goes on to commit it, is considered to have the mens rea of the offence, even if he claims to have become too intoxicated to intend the outcome

Question 8

R v O’Grady, R v Hatton

Answer 8

A defendant cannot rely on a mistaken belief in his need for self-defence (either the use of force at all or of the force used) where the mistake is caused by voluntary intoxication

Question 9

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 9

Drunken mistakes can be invoked for a defence of lawful excuse to simple criminal damage under s5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971