Intoxication Flashcards
mental capacity defence
When can intoxication be used as a defence?
when the D has taken drug, alcohol or other substances that have substantially impacted his/her judgement
Why is intoxication a defence?
Allows D to establish that he/she didn’t have the mental capacity for the offence which they have been charged with
They were so drunk that D was unable to form the MR of the offence
what does the defence depend on?
whether the crime was one of basic or specific intent
whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
voluntary intoxication
Where the D has chosen to take the intoxicating substance(s)
OR
knows the effect of taking a prescribed drug will make them intoxicated
DPP V beard - set out rule that if D was so drunk that he was incapable for the intent required, he cannot be convicted of a specific intent crime
Voluntary intoxication = NEVER a defence for a BASIC INTENT CRIME
(becoming voluntarily intoxicated is reckless so can form part of the MR which include recklessness)
- Majewski rule
D will be convicted of a lesser basic intent equivalent if specific intent crime was committed
- R V sheean and moore
Drunken intent is still intent - AG’s V Gallagher
intoxication can still be voluntary even if the D didn’t know the effect of the drug - R V Allen
If a substance causes unexpected effects, may be able to rely on the defence - R V Hardie
DDP v beard
D raped 13-yr old girl whilst intoxicated, put hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming, she died of suffocation
(still G of sexual assault)
D didn’t have MR for murder as was too intoxicated
Majewski
intoxicated D attacked landlord of pub and police officers, damaged the pub and the police station = all offences were basic intent
claimed he had no memory - court held intoxication is a reckless course of conduct - recklessness was enough for the MR of these offences
R V Sheehan and Moore
D will be convicted of a lesser basic intent equivalent if specific intent crime was committed
Conviction was reduced to manslaughter - D threw petrol over homeless and set him on fire
Gallagher
Drunken intent is still intent
D decised to kill wife, drank for “dutch courage” - MR prior to the intoxication = no defence
Allen
D charged with burglary after evening at the pub and some wine given to him by a friend - still voluntary, didn’t make the intoxication involuntary
Involuntary intoxication
where D doesn’t know they have taken an intoxicating substance (e.g. spiked)
OR
consumes an intoxication substance under medical advice (e.g. a sedative)
If D voluntarily takes a non-dangerous drug, doesn’t have to be prescribed, may be able to rely if drug causes unexpected effects
- R V hardie
If D already has MR = No defence
- R V Kingston
Where D has no MR = cannot be guilty of basic or specific intent crime (because D HASN’T been reckless in getting intoxicated)
- R V Lipman
D cannot rely on self-defence when state of fact has been induced by intoxication - O’Grady
a drunken mistake about the amount of force appliped in self defence was not a defence - R V hatton
EXCEPTION:
Jaggard V Dickinson -
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act - D cannot rely on any mistake attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced
R v Hardie
If D voluntarily takes a non-dangerous drug, doesn’t have to be prescribed, may be able to rely if drug causes unexpected effects
D took several pills to calm his nerves, set fire to house but remembered nothing - conviction quashed as drug took unexpected effects
R V Kinston
If D already has MR = No defence
D had pedophile tendencies, invited to house where he was spiked, D was photographed by the blackmailer abusing 15yr old drugged and unconscious boy - D had formed the MR before
R V Lipman
Where D has no MR = cannot be guilty of basic or specific intent crime (because D HASN’T been reckless in getting intoxicated)
R V O’Grady
D and V had been heavily drinking - D claimed he woke up in night to find the V hitting him, D hit V with ashtray, went to sleep, V found dead in morning - couldnt rely on mistake induced by intoxication
R V Hatton
D and V went back to flat after drinking - found V killed by sledgehammer, D couldn’t remember but had said that he had been hit by V with 5ft stick and that he’d defended himself - mistake about the amount of force required in SD is not defence
