Intoxication Flashcards
What does intoxication cover?
alcohol, drugs and other substances such as glue sniffing
Although intoxication does not provide a defence why is it relevant?
it is relevant as to whether or not the defendant has the required mens rea for the offence; if D has no mens rea for the offence, he may not be guilty
Whether the defendant is guilty or not depends on what?
1) on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
2) whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent
What are specific intent offences?
these are generally those which require septic intention for their mens rea such as murder, s.18 OAPA, theft, robbery and burglary
What are basic intent offences?
these are generally those for which recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea such as manslaughter, ss20 ss47 ,assault and battery
What is voluntary intoxication?
this is where the defendant has chosen to take an intoxicating substance such as alcohol, illegal drugs or other intoxicants such as sniffing glue and proscribed drugs where D is aware it will make him intoxicated
Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent office, If the defendant is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence, is he guilty?
no
Which case does the rule that If the defendant is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence then he is not guilty, come from?
DPP v Beard
What happened in the case of DPP v Beard?
D claimed he was too intoxicated to have the mens rea for murder. Conviction quashed on appeal as Lord Birkenhead stated that in a specific intent offence, intention is required. Unlawful act manslaughter instead
D claimed he was too intoxicated to have the mens rea for murder. Conviction quashed on appeal as Lord Birkenhead stated that in a specific intent offence, intention is required. Unlawful act manslaughter instead
What case is this?
DPP v Beard
other than DPP v Beard, in what other case was the defendant found too drunk to have formed the mens rea for murder?
Sheehan and Moore
What happened in the case of Sheehan and Moore?
Ds were very drunk and threw petrol over a tramp setting fire to him. Found too drunk to have formed an intent to kill. Intoxication was a defence to that offence. Guilty of manslaughter instead as it is a basic intent offence
Ds were very drunk and threw petrol over a tramp setting fire to him. Found too drunk to have formed an intent to kill. Intoxication was a defence to that offence. Guilty of manslaughter instead as it is a basic intent offence
What case is this?
Sheehan and Moore
Where D has the necessary mens rea despite his intoxicated state then he is guilty of that offence. The intoxication does not provide a defence. It has been held that drunken intent is still an intent. Which case shows this?
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
What happened in the case of A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher?
D decided to kill his wife and bought a knife He then drank a bottle of whiskey to give him Dutch courage. Convicted for murder upheld.
D decided to kill his wife and bought a knife He then drank a bottle of whiskey to give him Dutch courage. Convicted for murder upheld.
What case is this?
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Which 3 cases were heard together in 2013 at the COA?
Coley, McGhee, Harris
What happened in the case of Coley?
D took cannabis an attacked his neighbours. Trial judge ruled that the case was one of voluntary intoxication and the jury found him guilty of attempted murder. Conviction upheld as despite his state of mind, he intended to kill
D took cannabis an attacked his neighbours. Trial judge ruled that the case was one of voluntary intoxication and the jury found him guilty of attempted murder. Conviction upheld as despite his state of mind, he intended to kill
What case is this?
Coley
When is intoxication not a defence?
when the charge is one of basic intent
When the offence charged is one of basic intent, why is intoxication not a defence?
as voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered as reckless and recklessness is enough to consistute the necessary mens rea
What is the leading case on the fact that intoxication is not a defence for a basic intent offence?
DPP v majweski?
What happened in the case of DPP v Majweski?
D took alcohol and drugs and then attacked someone. D then attacked police officers. Law lords held that becoming intoxicated was reckless and enough to constitute the mens rea for assault cases
D took alcohol and drugs and then attacked someone. D then attacked police officers. Law lords held that becoming intoxicated was reckless and enough to constitute the mens rea for assault cases
What case is this?
DPP v majweski
Can a defendant who is suffering from a mental disorder brought on by past voluntary intoxication use the defence of intoxication?
yes
What case demonstrats that a defendant who is suffering from a mental disorder brought on by past voluntary intoxication can use the defence?
harris
What happened in the case of Harris?
D had previously been a heavy drinker who stopped and then suffered from a mental disorder as a result. He set fire to his house and the COA quashed conviction as it was too great an extension of Majweski to convict him.
D had previously been a heavy drinker who stopped and then suffered from a mental disorder as a result. He set fire to his house and the COA quashed conviction as it was too great an extension of Majweski to convict him.
What case is this?
Harris
What type of situations does involuntary manslaughter cover?
where the defendant did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance or where prescribed drugs have the unexpected effect of making D intoxicated
What case decided that where D had the necessary mens rea for the offence then he is guilty even if he is involuntarily intoxicated?
Kingston
What happened in the case of Kingston?
Ds coffee was drugged by another man who then photoed him abusing a 15 year old boy. HOL upheld conviction as D had formed the mens rea for the offence.
Ds coffee was drugged by another man who then photoed him abusing a 15 year old boy. HOL upheld conviction as D had formed the mens rea for the offence.
What case is this?
Kingston
When will D not be guilty for a basic intent offence or specific intent?
when D is involuntarily intoxicated, no mens rea and no recklessness
What case is an example of how D will not be guilty of either a specific or basic intent offence?
Hardie
What happened in the case of Hardie?
D took valium tablets not knowing they could make his behaviour unpredicatable and so found not guilty
D took valium tablets not knowing they could make his behaviour unpredicatable and so found not guilty
What case is this?
Hardie
What is an intoxicated mistake?
this is where the defendant is mistaken about a key fact because he is intoxicated and so it depends on what the mistake was about as to whether he has the defence or not
When will the defendant have the defence of intoxication for a specific intent offence when there is an intoxicated mistake?
when the mistake is about something which means that the defendant did not have the necessary mens rea for the defence
for what type of offence is an intoxicated mistake not enough for the defence?
basic intent offences
What case demonstrates that for a basic intent offence, an intoxicated mistake is not enough?
Lipman
What happened in the case of Lipman?
D and his girlfriend took LSD which caused him to believe she was snake. He strangled and killed her. D was convicted of manslaughter, no defence as je voluntarily took the drug which was a reckless course of conduct
D and his girlfriend took LSD which caused him to believe she was snake. He strangled and killed her. D was convicted of manslaughter, no defenceas je voluntarily took the drug which was a reckless course of conduct
What case is this?
lipman
If the intoxicated mistake was about something which meant that the defendant did not have the necessary mens rea of the offence then the defence is open for specific intent offences. However if the mistake is about another aspect such as the amount of force needed in self defence, will the defendant get it?
no
What case clarified that if the mistake is about another aspect such as the amount of force needed in self defence the defendant has no defence?
O’Grady
What happened in the case of O’Grady?
D and V had been drinking heavily. D woke with V biting him so he hit him with a glass ash tray and went to sleep. He awoke to V dead. D’s conviction for manslaighter was upheld
D and V had been drinking heavily. D woke with V biting him so he hit him with a glass ash tray and went to sleep. He awoke to V dead. D’s conviction for manslaighter was upheld
What case is this?
O/grady
Th decision in O’grady was clearly in line with which case?
DPP v Majweski as getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct which is sufficient for the basic intent offence of manslaughter
What did Lord Lane say in O’Grady about an intoxicated mistake in regards to the amount of force needed in self defence?
that it would not be a defence for specific intent offence
Which case confirmed the obiter statement of Lord Lane that D an intoxicated mistake as to the amount of force needed in self defence was not a defence to a specific intent offence?
Hatton
What happened in the case of Hatton?
D was drunk and said he could not remember but believed D hit him, which caused him to kill V with a sledghammer. COA held that the decision in O’Grady was not limited to basic intent offences, but also applied to specific intent offences. A drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self defence was not a defence
D was drunk and said he could not remember but believed D hit him, which caused him to kill V with a sledghammer. COA held that the decision in O’Grady was not limited to basic intent offences, but also applied to specific intent offences. A drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self defence was not a defence
What case is this?
Hatton
What act now makes it clear that a mistaken belief caused through the defendants voluntary intoxication cannot give a defence of self defence, defence of another or prevention of crime?
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
What does the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 do?
this makes it clear in statute law that a mistaken belief caused through the defendants voluntary intoxication cannot give a defence of self defence, defence of another or prevention of crime
What section of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that reasonable force may be used for purposes of self defence, defence of another or prevention of crime but (5) states that it does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to indication that was voluntarily induced?
s.76
What does s.76 (5) state?
that it does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to indication that was voluntarily induced
What case is an example of an exception to the rule on intoxicated make?
Jaggard v Dickinson
What happened in the case of Jaggard v Dickinson
D was drunk and went to what she thought was her friends house. She broke a window to get in, which she believed her friend would be ok with. D mistook the house and her convicted was quashed as Parliament had specifically required the court to require the actual state of belief.
D was drunk and went to what she thought was her friends house. She broke a window to get in, which she believed her friend would be ok with. D mistook the house and her convicted was quashed as Parliament had specifically required the court to require the actual state of belief.
What case is this?
Jaggard v Dickinson
Why was D’s conviction quashed in Jaggard v Dickinson which is an exception to the rule of intoxicate mistake?
as s5 of the Criminal Damage Act allows an honest belief that the person to whom the property belonged would have consented to the damage or destruction.
