Intoxication Flashcards
R v Sheehan and Moore [1975]
If D has mens rea for the offence, despite being drunk, then intoxication makes NO difference.
Lane LJ:
‘A DRUNKEN INTENT IS NEVERTHELESS AN INTENT’.
Involuntary Intoxication
When someone finds themselves to be intoxicated but it wasn’t their doing.
R. v Hardie [1984]
Couple break up - ex told him to calm down and to take one of her medically-prescribed pills - did so but had adverse effect on him - made him aggressive and he tried to start fire.
Convicted of arson.
Argued, on appeal, that jury should have been directed to consider issue of intoxication.
Conviction quashed.
Criticism: fact that he was reckless in taking someone else’s prescription medicine.
R. v Kingston [1994]
D was known paedophile - but on this occasion - he was set up by someone who spiked his coffee and lured a boy back to D’s flat - set up video equipment etc.
Abused.
C of A allowed appeal - on point of law - INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO THE JURY TO CONSIDER.
BUT H OF L OVERTURNED -but heavily criticised - just did so because known paedo.
R. v Allen [1988]
Made a mistake as to the alcohol content of wine - assault
Held; either voluntarily intoxicated or not - not in between.
Specific Intent Offences
Offences where only intention suffices - e.g. murder, GBH etc.
Basic Intent Offences
Offences which can be committed recklessly - without specific intention.
E.G. Manslaughter, battery etc.
Thus intoxication can be NO defence as the recklessness involved in getting drunk can be transferred to form the mens rea for the offence.
R. v MAJEWSKI [1976]
AUTHORITY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF PRIOR FAULT.
Racked up many assault charges against pub owners, then police etc.
Argued that he had been drinking for 48 hours and has no idea what he was doing and hence could not form mens rea.
AUTHORITY: PRIOR FAULT CAN BE TRANSFERRED FOR BASIC INTENT OFFENCES BUT NOT SPECIFIC INTENT ONES.
R. v Caldwell
Confirmed R. v Majewski
Intoxication is no defence to a crime in which recklessness if enough to constitute the necessary mens rea.
Attorney General of Nothern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]
‘DUTCH COURAGE’
D wanted to kill wife - drunk lots of alcohol in order to have the courage to do so.
Even though crime of specific intent - cannot rely on self-induced drunkenness as a defence to charge of murder, if purpose of drinking was to ‘give himself the Dutch courage to do the killing.’
R. v O’Grady [1987]
Links to self-defence - 1st part - D’s subjective assessment of whether force was necessary, even if mistaken but reasonably.
BUT - if mistaken belief was due to voluntary INTOXICATION - then self-defence must fail.
R. v Hatton [2005]
Affirmed in R. v O’Grady
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 S.76 (5)
Puts R. v O’Grady and R. v O’Hatton on a statutory footing.
(5) But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.’
