Intoxication

Question 1

State the 2 things needed to be considered in order to assess whether D would be able to use Intoxication as a Defence.

Answer 1

1) Whether intoxication was voluntary/involuntary
2) Whether offence charged is one of specific or basic intent

Question 2

Define Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 2

• D chose to take an intoxicating substance
• Also occurs where D knows effect of taking prescribed drug will make them intoxicated

Question 3

Explain Voluntary Intoxication, when the offence charged is one of Specific Intent

Answer 3

• If D’s voluntary intoxicated, could mean they didn’t form the MR of the offence, due to intoxication.
• DPP v Beard: test originally set by Lord Birkenhead
• R v Sheehan + Moore: if D’s so intoxicated he’s not formed the MR for the offence, he’s not guilty, irrespective of whether they were incapable of doing so.
• R v Lipman: where there’s an alternative basic intent offence, the prosecution know they will at least get a conviction for the lesser offence if the jury finds D didn’t form the MR for the specific intent offence.
• A-G for NI v Gallagher: Where D has necessary MR despite intoxicated state, they’re still guilty, as drunken intent is still intent.

Question 4

State the Fall-Back Offences for Specific Intent Offences

Answer 4

• If charge is Murder, fall back offence: Manslaughter
• If charge is S.18 GBH with intent, fall back offence: S.20 GBH OAPA

Question 5

Explain Voluntary Intoxication, when the offence is one of Basic Intent

Answer 5

( Voluntary intoxication isn’t a defence, as becoming intoxicated voluntarily is considered a reckless course of conduct + recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR for a basic intent offence. (R v Cunningham).
* DPP v Majewski: if D didn’t know they’d get intoxicated with what they took, they weren’t reckless + can use defence.
* R v Allen: if D doesn’t realise the strength of the intoxicant, could still use defence.

Question 6

Explain what Involuntary Intoxication covers.

Answer 6

• Being spiked
• Where prescribed drug has unexpected effect of making D intoxicated + D doesn’t realise effect

Question 7

Explain what may happen if D was Involuntarily Intoxicated

Answer 7

• D didn’t know they were taking an intoxicating substance.
• Also covers situations where a prescribed drug has unexpected effects of making D intoxicated.
• R v Kingston: D’s allowed to argue they didn’t form the MR whether offence is of specific or basic intent, but if the prosecution prove they did form the MR, they’ll be guilty, even if they wouldn’t have committed it had they not been involuntarily intoxicated.
• R v Hardie: Where D didn’t have the necessary intention or hasn’t been reckless in getting intoxicated, wont be guilty- as no MR.

Question 8

State + explain what the Intoxicated Mistake is.

Answer 8

• If D’s mistaken about a key fact because they’re intoxicated, depends on what the mistake was about as to whether they have a defence or not.
• If mistake is about something meaning D didn’t have necessary MR for the offence, then for a specific intent offence D has a defence, but where offence is one of basic intent, D has no defence.

Question 9

State + explain what the Evidential Burden is, with regards to Intoxication.

Answer 9

• R v Groark: D’s required to raise intoxication, + it’s for the judge to assess whether or not it’s sufficient for it to amount to a legal defence. Has to be raised at the first instance.