Intoxication

Question 1

Defence

Answer 1

Common Law only if D is unable to form mens rea due to his intoxication

Question 2

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 2

This is where D chooses to take an intoxicating substance. It can be through drinking alcohol, taking drugs, etc.

Specific intent crimes: If the D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the MR for the offence he may be able to rely on the defence. DPP v Beard Where the D still has the necessary MR for the offence despite his intoxication then he will still be guilty of the offence. A-G for NI v Gallagher

Basic intent crimes: Intoxication is NOT a defence for a basic intent crime (e.g. ABH). Voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough for the MR of basic intent offences. DPP v Majweski However, the courts have recently taken a softer approach and have suggested that the test for recklessness should be a subjective one when considering voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences. R v Richardson & Irwin

S76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 -> a mistaken belief caused through voluntary intoxication CANNOT give rise to self-defence, defence of another or prevention of crime. O’Grady

Question 3

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 3

Involuntary intoxication – This covers situations where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance, e.g. his drink has been spiked or a prescribed drug has had an unexpected effect on the D.

More relaxed rules than for voluntary intoxication situations as the D is less at fault! Can be used a defence for both specific and basic intent crimes! However, if D still develops the mens rea for the offence whilst involuntarily intoxicated, he is still guilty of the crime. Kingston Situations where D’s intoxication will treated as involuntary include when the intoxicating substance was:

Ø Taken under medical prescription (providing there was no recklessness!): Bailey

Ø Commonly known to have a sedative effect, (providing that there is no recklessness!) – Hardie

Ø Taken by the D without his/her knowledge. This includes ‘spiked’ drinks situations. HOWEVER, a D cannot argue that their intoxication was involuntary because the alcohol that they were voluntarily drinking was stronger than anticipated: Allen