Intoxication

Question 1

What type of defense is intoxication?

Answer 1

Not a true one unlike duress, it asks the juries to consider whether they committed a crime without mens rea

Question 2

What do intoxicants have an ability to do?

Answer 2

Influence someones perception, judgement and self control and the ability to forsee the consequences of their actions

Question 3

How does the law approach the defence of intoxication?

Answer 3

By balancing public policy (based on public protection and encouragement of good behaviour) and legal principles (being acquitted just because they were drunk)

Question 4

Who decides whether the D was intoxicated?

Answer 4

The judge - R v Groark 1999 D apparently drunk 10 pints of beer before striking V in face with knuckleduster, he gave evidence he knew what he was doing so judge did not direct jury as to intoxication

Question 5

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 5

Where a D chose to take an intoxicating substance and it can also occur where D knows effects of a prescripted drug will make him intoxicated

Question 6

What is the current law on intoxication?

Answer 6

Fairly lenient, at one point intoxication was not regarded as a defence at all

Question 7

What case showed that the current law on intoxication is very lenient?

Answer 7

DPP v Beard 1920 where judge ruled that if D was incapable of forming intent to kill or cause GBH then he will be not be guilty of murder but manslaughter

Question 8

What is now firmly accepted in regards to intoxication principles?

Answer 8

a D may not need to be incapable of forming intent; it is sufficient if he does not in fact do so

Question 9

Which case illustrated that a D may be very drunk but still may have formed the required mens rea?

Answer 9

R v Sheehan 1975 (threw pterol over a tramp and set him on fire, too drunk to form necessary intention so convicted of manslaughter) - if a D acts in a way which he would not have done sober the defense of intoxication does not assist him at all a “A DRUNKEN INTENT IS NEVERTHELESS AN INTENT”

Question 10

What did Lord Denning state in Bratty 1963?

Answer 10

“specific intent crimes can only be committed intentionally, basic intent crimes can be committed recklessly”

Question 11

What is the leading case on voluntary intoxication?

Answer 11

DPP v Majewski 1977. D was on 36 hour drugs and drink binge, in pub he assaulted a customer and a police officer, charged with a number of offences under both s47 and s20 OAPA 1861, his defence was that he was suffering from effects of drink and drugs and he had not foreseen the consequences of his actions so no mens rea but his conviction was upheld

Question 12

What did the HOL rule in Majewski 1977?

Answer 12

Intoxication is available for specific intent crimes where you will get a lesser offence but unavailable for basic intent crimes as if you are reckless this is enough mens rea for a crime in these cases

Question 13

What are some of the cases that are crimes of specific intent?

Answer 13

Murder - Beard 1920
Wounding with intent - Bratty 1963
Causing GBH with intent
Theft, robbery, burglary and attempts

Question 14

What are some of the cases that are crimes of basic intent?

Answer 14

Manslaughter (involuntary)
Rape - Fotheringham 1988
Inflicting GBH - Majewski 1977
ABH, assault, battery and criminal damage

Question 15

The legal principle of intoxication not being a defence for basic intent crimes was applied in what cases?

Answer 15

Lipman 1970 - D and girlfriend taken LSD before falling asleep, during hallucinations he woke up and found his girlfriend dead as had strangled her when he thought she was a snake, convicted of manslaughter
Fotheringham 1988 - Babysitter for D’s kids (14) had fallen asleep on D’s bed, believing she was his wife in a drunken state he had sex with her, held intoxicated mistake was no defence in rape

Question 16

The Majewski principle was established in a more recent case, this was…?

Answer 16

R v Heard 2007 - D undone his trousers, took his penis into his hand and rubbed it up and down a police officers thigh. when he sobered up he claimed he could not remember anything and when he was drunk he sometimes might “go silly and start stripping”
Charged with sexual assault under S.3 Sexual Offences Act 2003

Question 17

What is the distinction between basic and specific intent crimes?

Answer 17

Vital

Question 18

When can involuntary intoxication occur?

Answer 18

In situations where someone claims their drink had been ‘spiked’ or where someone has a bad reaction to prescribed drugs - they will not be automatically acquitted but can introduce a defence for both specific and basic intent crimes

Question 19

What is the leading case for intoxicants taken without the defendants knowledge?

Answer 19

Kingston 1995 - D had pedophiliac and homosexual tendencies, tried not to drink as lowered his levels of resistance, he was being blackmailed and invitied to a flat, they hired 15 year old boy to flat and drugged him, D given coffee laced with drugs and sexually abused boy which was photographed, D claimed he could not remember
COA quashed conviction as behaving this way due to INVOLUNTARY intoxication
HOL however ruled that he still had a mens rea as did not think the boy was another thing, he was aware of what he was doing as resistance levels were only LOWERED

Question 20

Explain the case R v Allen 1983…

Answer 20

Allen given homemade wine and did not know how strong the content was, got very drunk and carried out serious sexual assault, appealed against conviction however concluded D’s drinking was voluntary and him being unaware of strength of alcohol did not matter

Question 21

Drugs taken under prescription can still amount to an intoxication defence. Explain the case R v Bailey 1983

Answer 21

Diabetic who struck ex-girlfriends new partner over the head with iron bar causing 10 inch cut, charged with s.18 OAPA 1861, he said he had taken insulin but failed to eat after and triggered loss of consciousness and therefore had no mens rea, judge said condition was self-inflicted, however COA said defence is available if you are unaware of consequences of taking the drugs

Question 22

What does the law state about drugs that have a soporific effect?

Answer 22

Where a D takes drugs that normally have a sedative effect a D will be treated as being involuntarily intoxicated if effect is completely different

Question 23

What case illustrates sedatives leading to an intoxication defence?

Answer 23

R v Hardie 1985 - D had taken some of girlfreinds Valium following emotional seperation, experienced bad reaction when returned to her flat to collect clothes and set fire to a wardrobe, charged with arson but COA quashed conviction because effect of valium was wholly different from the usual effect of the drug

Question 24

What does English law say about using the defence of intoxication under duress?

Answer 24

It is allowed to be used but we do not have any case law, in the US it is treated as voluntary intoxication

Question 25

What is dutch courage?

Answer 25

This is where someone gets drunk to summon up the courage to do something, illustrated in AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963 where D wanted to kill his wife so drank most of a bottle of whisky got a knife and stabbed her, found guilty of murder as had this mens rea even though he was drunk

Question 26

What did Lord Denning say about dutch courage?

Answer 26

“if a man whilst sane and sober forms an intention to kill and makes preparation for it knowing it is the wrong thing to do and then gets himself drunk to give himself Dutch Courage he cannot rely on this self-induced drunkenness as a defence for murder, not even reducing it to manslaughter”

Question 27

What other defences can a defendant not use when they are intoxicated?

Answer 27

Mistake/self-defence

Question 28

Why can a D not use self-defence when intoxicated?

Answer 28

Normally a D can plead self-defence when there is no actual attack but they believe they are under attack and the force used was reasonable in the circumstances, this will not apply when a D is voluntary intoxicated

Question 29

What case illustrates the defence of intoxication and self-defence?

Answer 29

R v O’Grady 1987 (D and friend drinking, woke up to freind hitting him so in self-defence hit him with ashtray and discovered he was dead next morning)- as self defence is a full defence if the D was allowed a drunken mistake as an excuse then dangerous criminals could go unpunished, victims would feel justice would not have been done

Question 30

Explain the case R v Hatton 2005… (intoxication and self-defence)

Answer 30

D met a man in a club and went home together, next morning man was found dead with sledgehammer injuries, D said he could not remember anything except for a vague memory of defending himself in an argument. COA upheld his conviction as drunken mistakes are not allowed as a defence

Question 31

What act confirms the ruling that mistaken belief through voluntary intoxication cannot give rise to self-defence?

Answer 31

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Question 32

What is the ruling on intoxication and insanity?

Answer 32

Where intoxication produces insanity then rules relating to insanity apply. Drunkenness is one thing and disease to which drunkenness leads is another, as approved by HOL in DPP v Beard 1920 and Gallagher 1963

Question 33

What is the ruling on intoxication and automatism?

Answer 33

An act done in a state of automatism will negate criminal liability except where state is self-induced (R v Sullivan 1984)

Question 34

What is the ruling on intoxication and diminished responsibility?

Answer 34

In some cases a D can use diminished responsibility whilst intoxicated at time of offence - R v Tandy 1989
Wood 2006 held D.R is available if long-term alcoholism had caused the damage

Question 35

What is the advantage of the defence of intoxication being policy driven?

Answer 35

Public policy usually prevails over legal principle that a person is not in control or not able to form mens rea
Research shows significant number off crimes are committed by people under influence of drink and/or drugs, so it is a matter of not leaving dangerous criminals in society where they have been let off for a mistake

Question 36

What is the disadvantage of the basic/specific intent distinction in intoxication?

Answer 36

It appears neither logical or consistently applied, one approach would be to acquit all D’s who were unable to form mens rea, but obviously this contrasts with matters of public policy

Question 37

What is the disadvantage and harshness of the accused attitudes to intoxication?

Answer 37

Both someone who intendeds to loose self control and someone who intends no more than a little social drinking and ends up drunk will be treated the same

Question 38

What is the disadvantage of asking the jury to decide on cases of intoxication?

Answer 38

They are asked to enter a world based on fantasy and guess work however in crimes of basic intent they are asked to ignore the factor of intoxication completely

Question 39

What is the difficulty in constructing liability in intoxication cases?

Answer 39

in R v Kingston 1994 he only committed a crime because a 3rd party removed his control mechanisms, should drunken people be blamed more or less than a sober person who committed the same offence? ongoing debate

Question 40

What case did the COA ask the jury to think about a different ruling on basic intent crimes?

Answer 40

R v Richardson and Irwin 1999 both D’s and V were uni students who after a night drinking during horseplay threw V off a balcony 10 feet down, convicted of GBH, told the jury to consider if these reasonable men would have forseen what they were doing had they not been drinking

Question 41

What is the development of the defence of intoxication in Canada?

Answer 41

Until the ruling in Daviault the case law on intoxication was the same in the UK and Canada, however here they ruled a person could not use the defence is charged with a basic intent crime if the intoxication was so extreme to produce a state of automatism

Question 42

What are the 4 suggestions for reform in the defence of intoxication?

Answer 42

A complete deefence - as in Australia.
Law Commission took on suggestion of Butler Committee 1975 in 1993 that there should be a new offence of dangerous intoxication.
Law Commission 2009 report INTOXICATION AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY included a draft bill propoing putting rules on intoxication into legislation to make it more clear.
Been suggested intoxication should have a special verdict like insanity.