Intoxication

Question 1

When does intoxication work as a defence?

Answer 1

When it negates D’s mens rea.

Question 2

What factors need to be considered for intoxication?

Answer 2

-The type of intoxication
-The type of crime

Question 3

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 3

D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance e.g. by drinking or taking drugs. A defendant will also be regarded as voluntarily intoxicated where he knows that the effect of a prescription drug will make him intoxicated.

Question 4

What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 4

D is not aware he is taking an intoxicating substance e.g. spiking or an unexpected effect of a drug.

Question 5

What are specific intent crimes?

Answer 5

Crimes where D must have intention for the mens rea.

Question 6

What are some examples of specific intent crimes?

Answer 6

-Theft
-s18
-Murder
-Robbery
-s9(1)(a) burglary
-s9(1)(b) burglary- theft
-Attempts

Question 7

What are basic intent crimes?

Answer 7

D can have recklessness for the mens rea.

Question 8

What are some examples of basic intent crimes?

Answer 8

-Assault
-Battery
-s47
-s20
-UAM
-GNM
-s9(1)(b) burglary- GBH

Question 9

Which case applies to voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences where the intoxication negates the mens rea?

Answer 9

Lipman- D will not be convicted of a specific intent offence if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea of the offence. But if there is a related basic intent crime (e.g. UAM instead of murder), this will be used instead.

Question 10

Which case applies to voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences where the intoxication doesn’t negate the mens rea?

Answer 10

Gallagher- if the defendant has the required mens rea of the specific intent offence despite his intoxicated state, then he will be guilty of the specific intent crime. Drunken intent is still intent. (In this case, the single transaction theory was used to prove D has the mens rea for the offence).

Question 11

What is the rule for voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 11

DPP v Majewski- voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated and this can be transferred to satisfy the mens rea of the crime.

Question 12

What is the rule for involuntary intoxication and specific intent offences?

Answer 12

Kingston- if D has the mens rea of the specific offence despite the intoxication, he will still be guilty of the specific intent crime. In other words a drugged intent is still intent. However, if the intoxication negates the mens rea, he will not be guilty.

Question 13

What is the legal principle of Allen?

Answer 13

To be regarded as involuntary intoxication, the intoxication has to be completely involuntary. If D knows he is taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of its strength, this will be treated as voluntary intoxication.

Question 14

What is the rule for involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 14

Hardie- when D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated. If D has not been reckless in the offence either, then he will not have the mens rea required and will be found not guilty.

Question 15

What did the case of Lipman show about intoxicated mistakes?

Answer 15

D is allowed to make drunken mistakes.

Question 16

What is the general rule about making mistakes in self defence?

Answer 16

D is allowed to make honest mistakes about whether the use of force is necessary.

Question 17

Can D make drunken mistakes about self defence?

Answer 17

R v O’Grady- D is not allowed to make drunken mistakes about self defence. This is largely a policy decision to stop people getting intoxicated and saying they felt threatened in some way.

Question 18

What is EVAL point no1?

Answer 18

D cannot make intoxicated mistakes about self defence.

On the one hand, this can be justified as a deterrent because it makes sure that people are extra careful when taking intoxicating substances and stops people having an excuse for using drunken violence unnecessarily.

However, the inconsistency creates complexity and injustice. D is allowed to make mistakes and kill in self defence (Gladstone Williams) and D Is allowed to make mistakes and kill in intoxication (Lipman) but an intoxicated mistake is not allowed (O’grady) even if the consequence is less serious than a killing.

-Link to Q-

Question 19

What is EVAL point no2?

Answer 19

The Majewski rule arguably goes against coincidence and enables D to be guilty of ANY basic intent crime even if he wasn’t actually reckless for that consequence.

This is a problem because D is considered as having recklessness for any basic intent crime, even if he commits an actus reus a while after drinking without really knowing what he was doing.

However, we could argue that the events from drinking until the crime are a single transaction like in Thabo-Meli, and this does encourage people to drink responsibly and avoid any liability.

-Link to Q-

Question 20

What is EVAL point no3?

Answer 20

The law does not always treat voluntary intoxication different to involuntary intoxication. In Gallagher, D drank for ‘Dutch Courage’ but in Kingston, D’s coffee was spiked. However, both were convicted of a crime because ‘drunken intent’ is still intent. This makes the distinction between the type of intoxication irrelevant, and seems unjust as Gallagher was more blameworthy than Kingston.

However, if D still has the mens rea despite the intoxication, then the intoxication is insignificant and the distinction still serves an important purpose for basic intent crime due to the Majewski rule

Question 21

What is EVAL point no4?

Answer 21

The difference between specific intent crimes and basic intent crimes are not based on seriousness (ie theft is specific intent but s20 GBH is basic intent)

This is a problem because if D has a defence to specific intent crimes like s18 GBH, the Majewski rule makes it so that D will be guilty of s20 GBH if they were voluntarily intoxicated. Whereas if D committed the specific intent crime of theft, since there is no related basic intent crime, D would walk free. This is unjust and the outcome is not based on blameworthiness but whether or not the crime was made to require intent or not.

However, if the distinction was based on severity then it may become hard to apply the rules of how intoxication works in regards to mens era as well as deciding what makes a serious crime ‘serious’. This would create a lot of complexity and uncertainty.