intoxication

Question 1

Intoxication as a defence

Answer 1

This is not a defence as such but is relevant in deciding whether the D had the necessary mens rea.

If due to the D’s intoxicated state he does not have the mens rea, he may not be guilty.

Question 2

what does intoxication cover?

Answer 2

• alcohol
• drugs
• other substances such as glue-sniffing

Question 3

what are specific intent offences?

Answer 3

those that require specific intention for their mens rea

(murder, s.18 GBH, theft, robbery, burglary)

Question 4

what are basic intent offeneces?

Answer 4

those that have recklessness as part of the mens rea

(manslaughter, s20 GBH, s47 ABH, assault and battery)

Question 5

what is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 5

Where the defendant has chosen to take an intoxicating substance

It can also occur when D knows that the effect of a prescribed drug will be to make him intoxicated

Question 6

voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences

is it a defence?

Answer 6

If the voluntary intoxication causes the D to not form the mens rea then he is not guilty of a specific intent offence

DPP v Beard, Sheehan and Moore, Lipman

Question 7

DPP v Beard (1920)

Answer 7

The rule on vol intoxication and specific intent offences comes from this case

D was charged with murder and pleaded that he did not form the necessary mens rea

Lord Birkenhead made it clear that if the D was “so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required” then he could not be convicted.

Question 8

Sheehan and Moore (1975)

Answer 8

D’s set fire to a homeless man

They were too intoxicated to have formed any intention to kill or cause GBH

For that reason, they could plead intoxication which reduced their specific intent offence to manslaughter (a basic intent crime)

Question 9

dutch courage

+case

Answer 9

If D gets intoxicated to form the courage to commit the offence then his intoxication won’t be a defence for any crime. This is known as ‘Dutch Courage’

This can be shown by Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher, where D killed his wife after getting severely intoxicated to do so. It was held that a drunken intent was still an intent.

Question 10

Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 10

D killed his wife after getting severely intoxicated to do so. It was held that a drunken intent was still an intent.

Question 11

voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences

is it a defence?

Answer 11

If the offence is of basic intent then the D cannot raise intoxication when they become voluntarily intoxicated

This rule comes from DPP v Majewski - said becoming voluntary intoxicated would be considered a reckless course of conduct and will satisfy any offence where recklessness is enough for the mens rea.

Question 12

what about past intoxication?

Answer 12

Past voluntary intoxication that causes a mental disorder can be used as a defence

Harris (2013)

Question 13

involuntary Intoxication

Answer 13

This covers situations where the defendant did not know that he was taking an intoxicating substance, for example spiking soft drinks with alcohol or drugs

Also covers situations where prescribed drugs have the unexpected effect of making the defendant intoxicated.

Question 14

the test for involuntary intoxication

Answer 14

Here, it will be a complete defence so long as it is proved that the defendant lacked the mens rea to commit the offence

If so, it was decided in Kingston (1994) that he will be guilty!

The involuntary intoxication will not provide a defence. This is true even if the defendant would not have committed the offence without the intoxication lowering his resistance to committing the offence - Kingston (1994)

Question 15

Kingston (1994)

Answer 15

D’s coffee was drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him. He was then shown a 15 year old boy who was asleep and invited to abuse him. The defendant did so and was photographed by the blackmailer.

The HOL upheld his conviction for indecent assault. They held that if a defendant had formed the mens rea then involuntary intoxication was NOT a defence.

Question 16

intoxicated mistake

Answer 16

If the defendant is mistaken about a key fact because he is intoxicated then it depends on what the mistake was about:

• If the mistake is about something which that means he does not have the necessary mens rea then for specific intent offences he HAS A DEFENCE!
• For basic intent offences, he has NO defence.

See Lipman (1970)

Question 17

Lipman (1970)

Answer 17

D and his GF had taken LSD (causes hallucinations) before falling asleep. D thought ht was at the centre of the earth and being attacked by snaked and strangled and killed his GF by suffocating her. His conviction for manslaughter was upheld!

No specific intent – thought he was killing a snake. But was reckless as he took LSD so can be guilty of manslaughter (basic intent offence).

Question 18

intoxicated mistake - self defence

Answer 18

If the mistake is about another aspect such as the amount of force needed in self-defence, the defendant will NOT have a defence.

O’Grady (1987) - basic and Hatton (2005) - specific

Question 19

O’Grady (1987)

Answer 19

After D and V has been drinking heavily they fell asleep. D claimed he awoke to find V hitting him. D picked up a glass ashtray and hit V with it and went back to sleep. When he woke he found V dead.

D was charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter. CoA upheld conviction.

D and victim (V) drunk heavily and V, when asleep, began to kick D. D hit him with ashtray and he died. The CoA upheld conviction for manslaughter. Lord Lane stated that an intoxicated mistake as to the amount of force needed in self-defence was not a defence to either specific or basic intent offences.

Question 20

Hatton (2005)

Answer 20

D had drunk over 20 pints of beer. He and V went back to D’s flat. In the morning D claimed he found V dead from injuries caused by a sledgehammer. D said he could not really remember what happened but thought V had attacked him with a five-foot long stick and he defended himself.

D was convicted of murder

held that the decision in o’grady was not limited to basic intent offences, but also applied to specific intent offences - drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence was not a defence