Intoxication Flashcards
Intoxication
Intoxication means to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
It is not a defence, but can be used to show the D lacked the MR for the crime:
-Therefore making them not capable of commiting the crime and not guilty.
Involuntary Intoxication
Involunatry Intoxication is where the D becomes intoxicated through no knowledge or fault of their own e.g. through Drink Spiking.
Basic Intent:
Possible Defence
Hardie:
- D had arguement with GF, took Valium to calm himself
- Valium had adverse effect and made him aggressive, set fire to wardrobe
- Held that it was Involuntary if drug had unexpected effect.
Allen:
- D made homade wine, sexually assaulted girls
- claimed Involuntary Intoxication because he didn’t know the strength of the wine
- Held that not knowing strength was not involuntary.
Kingston:
- D with paedophilic predilections set up by man he had dispute with, man drugged 15yr old boy and put him in room.
- Man then drugged D and put him in with boy, D then assaulted boy
- Convicted, court held that ‘drugged intent is still intent’
Involuntary Specific:
Defence Available
Voluntary Intoxication
Basic Intent:
No Defence
Majewski:
Case gave definition of specific and basic intent
-D on drugs and gets into fight, assualts various police officers throughout the night after being arrested
-Lacked MR because of intoxication but crimes basic intent so conviction upheld.
Heard:
- D heavily intoxicated and had been self harming
- Police took D to hospital, took him outside to stop him disturbing people
- D rubbed penis on officers thigh
- Held sexual offence was Basic Intent, D guilty
Specific Intent:
Possible Defence
Lipman:
- D had taken LSD, hallucinated and thought he was being attacked by snakes and was fighting them
- D had actually killed a girl by cramming bedsheets into her mouth.
- Intoxication meant he lacked MR for murder, No defence available for manslaughter, D convicted
Sheehan and Moore:
- D’s poured petrol over homeless man and set him onfire, man died
- D not guilty of murder because they lack MR, convicted for Manslaughter
Dutch Courage
The defence of Intoxication cannot be used where the D has become intoxicated in order to carry out a crime (Already had MR before intoxication).
AG N.I v Gallagher:
- D psycopath who had violent outbursts and was aggressive towards wife
- Planned to kill his wife so drank whiskey to make himself more aggressive
- Court held that Dutch Courage meant he couldn’t use Intoxication as defence, guilty of Murder.
Reform
Law on Intoxication is largely policy based: Half of all violent crimes committed by an intoxicated D.
Law Commission 1993:
- Said Majewski rule of getting drunk being reckless was unfair
- Proposal was severely criticised and LC changed their opinion
- By 1995, they said law was ‘fairly, on the whole, without due difficulty’
Butler Committee 1975:
- Proposed ‘Dangerous Intoxication’ offence for all D’s acquitted for crimes where they were intoxicated
- Proposed max 1yr for first offence and 3yr for any further offences
- Rejectedbecause it didn’t distinguish how serious crimes were e.g. 1yr for murder and for assault.
