Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law > Intoxication > Flashcards

Intoxication Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What type of defence is intoxication?

What is it used for? (jury)

A

Not a true defence (unlike duress)
= not an excuse to say D wouldn’t acted if not intoxicated
= means of putting doubt in jurors mind whether D performed necessary MR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What do intoxicants have the ability to do?

A

Influence a person’s perception, judgement, self-control + ability to foresee consequences of actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How does the law approach the defence of intoxication?

A

= argument whether legal principle/ public policy should be applied in situation
Legal principle = D acquitted because they were drunk
Public policy = based on public protection + encouraging good behaviour
LAW NEEDS TO FIND BALANCE OF THE 2
(BUT public policy is usually favoured)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Who decides if the D was intoxicated?

Name a case that illustrates this point

A

Evidence = needed BUT
Whether D = intoxicated = question of law for the JUDGE
R v Groark (1999) - D drunk but pleaded self-defence, judge didn’t direct jury to intoxication, no obligation to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Groark (199)

A

D had apparently drunk 10 pints of beer before striking V in the face with a knuckleduster
Charged with wounding (s18 OAPA)
At trial D gave evidence that knew what he was doing, acted in self-defence
Trial judge didn’t direct jury to intoxication
D = convicted
CA dismissed appeal; D didn’t raise defence + = no obligation for judge to do so on his behalf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is voluntary intoxication?

A

D has chosen to take intoxicating substance/ knows effects of prescribed drugs (or other substance) will make him intoxicated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How harsh is the current law on intoxication?

Name a case that illustrates this point

A

Fairly lenient
At 1 point intoxication wasn’t regarded as a defence at all

DPP v Beard (1920)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

DPP v Beard (1920)

A

Whilst intoxicated D raped 13 year old girl
Put hands over her mouth to stop her screaming
Died of suffocation
D pleaded intoxication to deny malice aforethought

Lord Birkenhead: if D = rendered incapable of forming intent to kill/ GBH then he wouldn’t be G of murder but MS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What did Lord Birkenhead say in the case of DPP v Beard (1920)?

A

If a D = rendered incapable of forming the intent to kill/ cause GBH then he wouldn’t be G of murder but MS

  • principle remains fairly unchanged, now firmly accepted that D doesn’t have to be incapable of forming intent, its enough that he in fact doesn’t do so
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What case illustrates that a D can still be very drunk but form the necessary MR?
Describe this case

A

R v Sheehan (1975)
2 intoxicated Ds threw petrol over tramp + set him on fire, causing death
Ds = too drunk to form necessary intent - convicted of MS
If D acts in way wouldn’t have if sober, defence of intoxication doesn’t assist him at all
A DRUNKEN INTENT IS NEVERTHELESS AN INTENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What did Lord Denning say in the case of Bratty (1963)?

A

‘Specific intent crimes can only be committed intentionally, basic intent crimes can be committed recklessly’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the leading case on voluntary intoxication?

Explain the case

A

DPP v Majewski (1977)
D went on 36 hour drug + drink binge
Assaulted customer + police officer in pub
Charged with no. of offences (s47, s20 OAPA)
Argued he was suffering from effects of drugs/ alcohol at the time, prevented him from foreseeing consequences, no MR
D convicted, CA + HL upheld convictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was held by the HL in the case of DPP v Majewski (1977)?

A

Intoxication = only available for specific intent crimes
If successfully proved D may be convicted of lesser offence
Defense = unavailable for basic intent crimes; if D = reckless to become so intoxicated he doesn’t know what he’s doing, has enough MR for crime that can be committed recklessly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Give 4 examples of specific intent crimes + cases

A
  1. Murder (Beard 1920)
  2. Wounding with intent, s18 (Bratty 1963)
  3. GBH with intent, s18
  4. Theft, robbery, burglary + attempts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Give 4 examples of basic intent crimes + cases

A
  1. MS (involuntary)
  2. Rape - Fotheringham 1988
  3. Wounding, s20 - Majewski 1977
  4. Criminal damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the MR of specific intent crimes?

A

MR of intention only must be proved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the MR of basic intent crimes?

A

MR can either be intention OR recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Why is intoxication not a defence for basic intent crimes?

Name the 2 cases that illustrate this

A

Because becoming voluntarily intoxicated = reckless
Recklessness = enough to constitute MR for basic intent crimes
Distinction between the 2 = VITAL!

  1. R v Lipman (1970)
  2. R v Fotheringham (1998)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

R v Lipman (1970)

A

D + girlfriend had taken LSD before falling asleep
D had drug induced hallucination
Thought he was at the centre of the earth being attacked by snakes
Woke to find his girlfriend dead - strangled + stuffed sheets in her mouth, thought she was a snake
Convicted of MS
CA confirmed this decision - couldn’t establish intention for murder as high on drugs at time of killing, but could be G of MS (basic intent crime, no defence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Fotheringham (1998)

A

Baby-sitter aged 14 had fallen asleep on parents bed
In very drunken state, D went to bed
Assumed it = wife asleep on bed + had sex with her
convicted of rape
Appealed against conviction, held intoxicated mistake was no defence to rape

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

The Majewski principle was illustrated in a more recent case

Name and describe this case

A

R v Heard (2007)
D undone his trousers, took his penis in his hand + rubbed it up + down police officer’s thigh
When sober, claimed couldn’t remember anything BUT he sometimes ‘went silly + can start stripping’
charged with sexual assault (s3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 - requires touching to be intentional)
CA agreed with trial judge + upheld conviction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Why is the distinction between specific + basic intent crimes so vital when it comes to the defence of intoxication?

A

= difference between if defence = available
Majewski: intoxication can be pleaded for specific intent crimes, if accepted D may be convicted of lesser offence/ fall back offence e.g. murder to MS

BUT intoxication = not available for basic intent crimes
Cts argue recklessness for MR can be substituted by D’s reckless behaviour in getting intoxicated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Do the rules laid out in Majewski apply to involuntary intoxication?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What situations does involuntary intoxication cover?

A

When someone becomes intoxicated without their knowledge/ against their wishes
e.g. having their drink ‘spiked’/ abnormal reaction to prescribed drugs

25
Q

If a D is involuntarily intoxicated, are they automatically acquitted?

A

No
Can introduce the defence for both specific + basic intent crimes
If intoxication negates MR, D = entitled to an acquittal

26
Q

What is the leading case for intoxicants taken without the D knowledge?
Describe the case

(IV intox)

A

R v Kingston (1995)
D had paedophiliac + homosexual tendencies, tried not to drink; knew lowered his resistance
D = being blackmailed + invited to visit a flat, 15 year old boy also lured to flat + drugged
D = given coffee laced with drugs
While boy = asleep, D = invited to sexually abuse him (photographed + tape recorded)
D claimed couldn’t remember anything about event
Jury directed: could find D G if they = sure that D still had MR despite drugs
Convicted of indecent assault

CA: quashed conviction, behaving as result of IV intox
HL: disagreed (still formed MR) reinstated conviction
D didn’t think boy was something else, he = aware of what he was doing, resistance levels were lowered

27
Q

R v Allen (1988)

IV intox

A

D = given home-made wine, didn’t realise it had very high alcohol content
Got very drunk, carried out serious sexual assault
Found G + appealed
CA concluded, D’s drinking had been voluntary, D being unaware of strength didn’t matter

= very important that D doesn’t know that they’re taking intoxicating substance!

28
Q

How were the jury directed in the case of R v Kingston (1995)?

A

They could find the D G if they were sure that the D still had the MR of the offence despite the effects of the drugs

29
Q

What did the CA do in the case of R v Kingston (1995)?

What did the HL do in the same case?

A

CA: Quashed the D’s conviction of indecent assault
- behaviour was a result of IV intoxication

HL: Disagreed with CA, reinstated conviction
- Argued D still formed MR, D didn’t think that the boy was something else, he = aware of what he was doing, he just had lower resistance levels

30
Q

What is vital in cases of IV intoxication?

What case illustrates this?

A

That the D didn’t know that they were taking an intoxicating substance

R v allen (1988) - home made wine

31
Q

Drugs taken under prescription can amount to an intoxication defence, at the juris discretion
What case illustrates this?
Explain the case

A

R v Bailey (1983)
D struck ex-girlfriend’s new partner over head with iron bar, causing 10 inch cut
D = diabetic, said he’d taken insulin but failed to eat afterwards
= triggered loss of consciousness, therefore no MR
Trial judge: condition = self-inflicted + = convicted (s18 OAPA)
CA held: defence = available as long as the D = unaware of the consequences of taking the drug

32
Q

How will a D be treated if the intoxication was caused by a drug that usually has a soporific effect?

Name a case that illustrates this

A

Treated as being IV intoxicated IF effect = completely different
Jury should be directed to consider whether taking such drugs was reckless

R v Hardie (1985)

33
Q

R v Hardie (1985)

IV intox

A

D had taken some of his GF’s valium tablets following emotional separation, had bad reaction
Returned to her flat to collect clothes, set fire to a wardrobe
Charged wth arson
Said he was unaware of actions - valium
Jury = directed to ignore effects of Valium + = convicted
CA quashed conviction; effect of valium = wholly different from usual effect of drug
Ct stressed: once unexpected side effect occurs +drug is taken again, defence will be unavailable

34
Q

What was stressed by the Cts in the case of R v Hardie (1985)?

A

Once an unexpected side effect occurs and the drug is taken again then the defence will be unavailable

35
Q

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

A

English doesn’t have any case law
In USA = treated as voluntary intoxication
- persuasive precedent
Whether or not it will be V/IV in the UK has yet to be decided

36
Q

What is Dutch courage?

Name a case that illustrates this

A

Where someone gets drunk to summon courage to do something

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

37
Q

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

A

D decided to kill wife
Drank most of a bottle of whisky to give himself courage
Got knife + stabbed her to death
Found G of murder
D had intent for murder deposit being drunk
HL upheld conviction
Lord Denning: if D forms intention to kill whilst sober + kills using dutch courage, he cannot rely on self-induced drunkenness as a defence to murder, not even reducing it to MS

38
Q

What did Lord Denning say in the case of AG Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)?

A

‘If a man = sober whilst forms intention to kill, makes preparations for it knowing its wrong + them gets himself drunks as to give himself dutch courage + then carries out the killing, he CANNOT rely on his self-induced drunkenness as a defence to murder
Not even to reduce it to MS’

39
Q

Can a D use the defence of mistake/ self-defence if intoxicated?

A

D can normally plead mistake/ self-defence even if = no actual attack
As long as D genuinely believed they were under attack + used reasonable force
HOWEVER, won’t apply if reason for D’s mistake was due to D being VOLUNTARILY INTOXICATED

40
Q

What case illustrates the law on intoxication and self-defence?
Explain the case

A

R v O’Grady (1987)
D + friend had been drinking heavily, fell asleep
D said he woke to friend hitting him
In self-defence D hit him in head with ashtray
Next morning discovered he was dead
Convicted of MS, upheld by CA
Ruled where D = mistaken in thinking that any force = necessary OR force used = unreasonable + mistake = caused by intoxication, defence will fail

Followed in case of R v Hatton (2005)

41
Q

What case followed the ruling in R v O’Grady (1987)?

Explain the case

A

R v Hatton (2005)
D met man at a club, both returned to D’s flat
Next morning man = found dead, sledgehammer injuries
D said he couldn’t remember what had happened; very drunk BUT had vague memory of an argument + defending himself
Trial judge: drunken mistake = not a defence, even to M
CA upheld the conviction

42
Q

Which Act confirms the ruling in R v O’Grady (1987)?

A

Criminal Justice + Immigration Act 2008

  • mistaken belief caused by voluntary intoxication cannot give rise to self-defence
43
Q

What does the law say on the use of intoxication + insanity defences?
Give 2 cases that illustrate this

A

Where intoxication produces insanity, rules relating to insanity apply
Drunkenness is one thing + drunkenness which leads to disease is another

Approved by the HL in: DPP v Beard (1920) + Gallagher (1963)

44
Q

What does the law say on the use of intoxication + automatism defences?
What case was this stated in?

A

An act done in a state of automatism will negate criminal liability
EXCEPT where the state = self-induced
As stated by Lord Diplock in R v Sullivan (1984)

45
Q

What does the law say on the use of intoxication + diminished responsibility defences?

(2 x cases + HL ruling)

A

Sometimes can bring a D within the scope of D.R if = classed as pre-existing medical condition involving intoxication (R v Tandy (1989))

HL: drunken D with mental abnormalities won’t automatically be barred from pleading DR

Wood (2006) - DM = available if long-term alcoholism has caused brain damage

46
Q

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

A

PP usually prevails over legal principle (D not in control + unable to form MR shouldn’t be convicted)
Research shows significant no. crimes = committed by intoxicated people
= Fine line between this + deterring people from using intoxicating substances
BUT D may become recklessly intoxicated without intention of committing ANY crime, seems to go against LP
USE CASE OF R v LIPMAN (1970) TO ILLUSTRATE ISSUES

47
Q

What is a problem with the distinction between basic + specific intent crimes within this defence?

A

Distinction isn’t logical or consistently applied
Law asks: did D have required mental state to constitute MR?
One approach would acquitted all D’s unable to form MR
BUT = ISSUES WITH PUBLIC POLICY

48
Q

What is a disadvantage of there not being a distinction between the D attitude towards the intoxication?

A

Currently no distinction
Both someone who INTENDS to loose self control + someone who only intends to drink socially but ends up drunk, WILL BE TREATED THE SAME

Normal principles of liability, 1st would seem MORE blameworthy than the 2nd

49
Q

What is the difficulty of juries being involved in cases involving intoxication?

A

Current law asks juries to enter world based on guess work/ fantasy
- What MIGHT have happened if D not intoxicated?

HOWEVER, basic intent crimes they’re asked to DISREGARD intoxication completely when deciding if D committed the offence

50
Q

Evaluation: How is there inconsistency within the defence of intoxication?

A

Fall back offences allow D to be convicted of similar, lesser offence
Can act as reasonable compromise
BUT also means D = not punished according to offence committed
ALSO some offences DON’T have fall back offence e.g. theft
In these situations, D = acquitted
Then means that it CAN be a complete defence to some crimes but not others

51
Q

What is the difficulty in constructing liability in intoxication cases?
Name a case to illustrate this

A

In R v Kingston (1994) D only committed crime because 3rd party removed hi control mechanisms
Should drunk people be blamed more than sober people who have committed the same offence?
Ongoing debate - have to balance public policy

52
Q

Why is the CA ruling in R v Richardson + Irwin (1999) so important to the rules on voluntary intoxication + the idea of constructing liability?
Describe the case

A

Both Ds + V = university students
After evening drinking all returned to accommodation
During course of horseplay, V = limited over balcony + dropped 10 feet to ground
Jury: directed consider Ds foresight of consequences based on reasonable sober man
Ds convicted s20 OAPA 1861, basic intent crime
CA quashed convictions: not Q of reasonable man but what Ds would’ve foreseen if sober

Rule: basic intent c, jury should be directed to assume D = sober + assess if would’ve foreseen consequences
Still hypothetical Q, but improvement on Majewski rules (drunk = automatically reckless)

53
Q

How has the law on intoxication developed in Canada?

Name the case that changed this

A

Until case of Daviault law was same as UK
(sexual assault following consumption bottle of brandy + several beers)
Supreme Ct of Canada: defence could be available for D charged with basic intent offence IF intoxication = so extreme produces state of automatism
Burden of proof = D, prove balance of probabilities
Expert evidence = required

54
Q

Name the case in Canada that changed the law on the defence of intoxication

A

Daviault

55
Q

What are 4 suggestions of reforms to be made to the defence of intoxication?

A
  1. Complete defence; D lacks MR (as in Australia)
  2. New offence, dangerous intoxication
  3. Legislating CL rules of intoxication IOT make clearer
  4. Special verdict (committed whilst intoxicated)
56
Q

Who suggested the creation of a new offence, dangerous intoxication?

A

Originally suggested by Butler Committee in 1975
Later recommended by Law Commission in 1993
Where jury found D committed AR but so intoxicated lacks MR, jury could be directed to acquit D BUT find them G of dangerous intoxication

57
Q

What was proposed by the Law Commission in their 2009 report?
What was this report called?

A

Law Commission’s 2009 report ‘Intoxication + Criminal Liability’
Included drafting a Bill proposing to legislate common law rules on intoxication to make them clearer
BUT complicated to do, distinction between specific/basic intent would be same
Also keep difference between V /IV intoxication

58
Q

Describe the suggested reform of a ‘special verdict’

A

‘Offence = committed by D whilst intoxicated’
D = liable for same potential penalty as if convicted normal way
(except if charge = M, then penalty = that of MS)
Sentencing could then reflect harm done + intoxication could be considered where appropriate

A2 Law (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions