Intoxication

Question 1

What is the introduction to the intoxication defence?

Answer 1

D has been drinking/had their drink spiked/taken drugs [delete as appropriate], they may be able to claim the defence of intoxication. Intoxication is not a defence as such, but is relevant in determining whether D had the required mens rea for the offences.

In order to claim intoxication, D must not have formed the mens rea for the offence (DPP v Beard). Dutch courage will never be a defence (AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher).

Question 2

What is the first stage of the intoxication defence? (voluntary?)

Answer 2

The first question to be answered is whether the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary.

Application: In this case/here, the intoxication would be [insert type of intoxication] because [use facts of the scenario].

Question 3

What is the answer for voluntary intoxication?

Answer 3

The way the defence operates changes depending on whether the crime committed is a specific intent crime or a basic intent crime.
Here, the crime that has been committed is specific/basic.

IF Specific intent:
In order to successfully plead the defence, D must lack the mens rea of the offence (Sheehan and Moore).
If this is the case then it will reduce the conviction to the lower basic intent equivalent of the offence, if available (Lipman)
Here, [Did D form the mens rea? Is there a basic intent equivalent?]
Conclusion on whether defence applies, and impact on D’s charge.

IF Basic intent:
According to R v Majewski, it was held that being intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct and therefore no is defence available to basic intent offences.
Application: In this case/here, D was reckless when they voluntarily [describe intoxication] and as [state offence] is basic intent, D’s actions satisfy the mens rea
Conclusion on whether defence applies, and impact on D’s charge

Question 4

What is the answer for involuntary intoxication?

Answer 4

If D is intoxicated through no fault of their own then they can use the defence if he or she did not form the mens rea regardless of whether the offence is specific or basic intent
BUT if the prosecution can prove that D did form the mens rea, they will be guilty of the offence even if D would not have committed the offence had they not been intoxicated (Kingston).

Specific intent:
In this case/here, the crime that has been committed is [state crime and that it is specific intent]. Here D did/ did not form the mens rea as ……. [Discuss why they did or did not form MR]

Conclusion on whether defence applies, and impact on D’s charge.

Basic Intent:
In this case/here, the crime that has been committed is [state crime and that it is basic intent].
If D has no MR and has become involuntarily intoxicated, they have not been reckless so not guilty (Hardie). If relevant, include that this covers prescribed drugs that have an unexpected affect.
Here D did/ did not form the mens rea as ……. [Discuss why they did or did not form MR].

Conclusion on whether defence applies, and impact on D’s charge.