Intoxication Flashcards
3 distinctions to look out for regarding intoxication
voluntary vs involuntary intoxication
basic vs specific intent
dangerous vs non-dangerous drugs
voluntary vs involuntary intoxication
VOLUNTARY
DPP v Majewski [1976] TEST
- if voluntarily intoxicated then no defence of lack of MR as result of that intoxication.
- suffices for cases of basic intent (but not specific intent)
- for reckless: if would have been aware of risk when sober then no defence for it.
- IF offence requires specific intent then D may plead lack of mens rea even though that be due to his intoxication
Attorney General for Norther Ireland v Gallagher
- dutch courage = no defence even for specific intent (bc you obvi had the intent and used intoxication to give rise to AR)
INVOLUNTARY
Kingston [1994]
- if D** lacks mens rea** as a result of involuntary intoxication, he/she/they must be acquitted
- But if D has mens rea, notwithstanding the involuntary intoxication, the intoxication is no defence
what does not suffice as involuntary:
Allen [1988]
- it is sufficient if D knew was drinking alcohol (even if he underestimated the amount or the effect)
basic vs specific intent
Specific Intent Crimes
- D not guilty if no mens rea
- recklessness and negligence do not suffice.
Basic Intent Crimes
- offences that can be reckless or negligent can suffice.
- ie reckless murder is manslaughter…
- theft requires intent so specific.
(a) Dangerous Drug. D liable unless would not have seen risk if sober.
(b) Non-dangerous drug. D liable if reckless as to becoming dangerous/aggressive
Murder = specific: Beard (1920);
Manslaughter = basic: Beard (1920)
Section 18 OAPA = specific: Davies (1991);
Section 47 OAPA = basic: Majewski (1977);
Section 20 OAPA = basic: Aitken (1992)
Assault = basic: Majewski (1977)
Battery = basic: Majewski (1977)
Rape = basic: Woods (1982)
Theft = specific: Majewski (1977)
Dangerous vs non-dangerous drugs
Dangerous drugs:
- drugs that cause unpredictability or agressiveness (Majewski)
- aggressive dangerous drugs MIGHT be a defence to MR but likely only if involuntary (Kingston)
non-dangerous drugs:
Hardie:
- If the effect of a drug is merely soporific or sedative, even in excess, then cannot claim intoxication for purpose of disproving MR.
- if D knows that not taking, or taking in a certain way would lead to risk then this is reckless.
- If D does appreciate the [relevant] risk’ of ‘aggressive, unpredictable and uncontrollable conduct and he nevertheless deliberately runs the risk or otherwise disregards it, this will amount to recklessness.’
