Intoxication

Question 0

Kingston (1994)

Answer 0

Defendant was a convicted pedophile. A blackmailer enticed the defendant and a young boy (who was drugged) to his flat, then filmed the defendant abusing the boy. The defendant alleged that his coffee had been drugged. The House of Lords would not allow involuntary intoxication as a defence, because of the need to prevent it from being misused. Also the defendant was capable of moral judgement at the time of the offence,.

Question 1

Attorney-General’s Reference (no 1 of 1975)

Answer 1

Defendant went on a night out, his friend spiked his drink with alcohol, he drove home unaware that he was drunk and was convicted of drink driving. Involuntary intoxication is not a defence to strict liability offences.

Question 2

Sheehan and Moore (1975)

Answer 2

General rule - if there is evidence that intoxication may be relied upon by the defence, then the judge should leave the issue to the jury. For the majority of cases there is still intent despite the intoxication.

Question 3

Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

Answer 3

Defendant decided to kill his wife but drunk before he did it. Denning held intention had been formed so he couldn’t rely on intoxication as a defence.

Question 4

Lipman (1969)

Answer 4

Defendant took LSD, hallucinated and thought his partner was a snake and killed her. Courts differentiated between specific and basic intent crimes - intoxication can be a defence for specific intent crimes but not basic intent crimes.

Question 5

DPP v Majewski (1977)

Answer 5

Defendant committed a series of assaults while drunk and on drugs, held he couldn’t be convicted under s18 of the OAPA but could be convicted under s20.

Question 6

Heard (2007)

Answer 6

s3 Sexual Offences Act, intentional touching, one element of the crime required specific intent but the other elements did not, held: not all crimes can be easily categorised into specific or basic intent.

Question 7

Hardie (1984)

Answer 7

D took valium thinking it would calm him down, it did not, he set fire to V’s wardrobe. It was not a dangerous drug, was no fault element as he was not recklessly getting intoxicated.

Question 8

B v DPP (2000)

Answer 8

B assaulted a 14 year old girl, honestly believed that she was older even though it was unreasonable, the honest belief could still be a defence.

Question 9

R v Aitken (1992)

Answer 9

There was initial consent to horseplay, the consent was withdrawn but the horseplay continued due to intoxication, there was a valid defence.

Question 10

R v Fotheringham (1989)

Answer 10

Defendant had voluntarily got intoxicated, it wasn’t a defence for his mistaken belief that he was having sex with his wife when really it was the 14 year old babysitter as rape is a basic intent offence so intoxication cannot be a defence.

Question 11

R v O’Grady (1987)

Answer 11

Defendant got into a drunken fight with his friend and accidentally killed him, his intoxicated mistake meant that he used more force than was reasonably necessary.

Question 12

Di Duca (1959)

Answer 12

To assess claim for diminished responsibility, courts look at nature of intoxication, as the effect of alcohol on brain may lead to a medical condition.

Question 13

Tandy (1988)

Answer 13

Defendant was an alcoholic, strangled her daughter after heavy drinking, defence of diminished responsibility can apply if the brain had been injured by alcohol and drinking had become involuntary.

Question 14

Wood (2009)

Answer 14

D was an alcoholic suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome, he stabbed his victim, could rely on diminished responsibility.

Question 15

Stewart (2009)

Answer 15

Defendant had alcohol dependency syndrome, he killed a man, the court looked at whether the defendant drank first thing in the morning to find evidence of alcohol dependency.