Intoxication

Question 1

If, due to intoxication, the defendant does not form the necessary mens rea, what are they entitled to?

Answer 1

Full acquittal

Question 2

What does R v Bennett say about there being evidence of the defendant not forming the mens rea?

Answer 2

The judge is obliged to direct the jury on intoxication

Question 3

What did R v Beard say about intoxication providing a defence?

Answer 3

The case said to act as a defence intoxication had to make the defendant incapable of forming the mens rea.

Question 4

Which case criticised R v Beard as being inappropriate and inconsistent with the subjective test for forming criminal intent founded in s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967?

Answer 4

R v Sheehan and Moore

Question 5

What did the case of R v Pordage confirm?

Answer 5

For the defence of intoxication to function it is not whether the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, but whether, even if still capable, the defendant did form it.

Question 6

Why was the defendant convicted in R v Kingston despite being involuntarily intoxicated?

Answer 6

He had already formed the mens rea.

Question 7

When can intoxication operate to negate the mens rea? There are four situations.

Answer 7

1. In any crime where the intoxication is caused by involuntary intoxication;
2. In any crime where intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily, but in bona fide pursuance of medical treatment;
3. In any crime where intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily;
4. In crimes where specific intent is required.

Question 8

When addressing whether intoxication will negate the mens rea, which three questions should you ask?

Answer 8

1. Is D voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated?
2. Is the intoxicant dangerous or non-dangerous?
3. Is the offence committed of basic or specific intent?

Question 9

Who has the evidential burden to prove intoxication?

Answer 9

The defendant (the prosecution must prove the defendant formed the necessary mens rea despite intoxication).

Question 10

What does R v Allen say about involuntary intoxication?

Answer 10

When D is unaware of the strength of alcohol he cannot claim to be involuntarily intoxicated.

Question 11

When may a person taking prescribed drugs not claim to be involuntarily intoxicated?

Answer 11

When he/she has exceeded their prescription.

Question 12

How did the court categorise drugs in R v Hardie?

Answer 12

1. Those that are commonly known to cause aggressive, dangerous or unpredictable behaviour are treated the same as alcohol;
2. Those that are not commonly known to cause the above but are soporific or act as a sedative mean the taker will only be involuntarily intoxicated.

Question 13

What drug did Hardie take, which at first instance had him convicted, but at Court of Appeal had his case dismissed?

Answer 13

Valium

Question 14

To whom did the drugs Hardie took belong to?

Answer 14

His girlfriend

Question 15

Why did the Court of Appeal acquit Hardie?

Answer 15

Valium was taken to calm his nerves and there was no evidence it would make him aggressive or reckless.

Question 16

In which case did the House of Lords hold that voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of specific intent?

Answer 16

DPP v Majewski

Question 17

What did Lord Elwyn-Jones say (generally speaking) about voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes in DPP v Majewski?

Answer 17

Voluntary intoxication would never be a defence to a charge of basic intent.

Question 18

How did the case of DPP v Majewski split basic and specific intent crimes?

Answer 18

Basic = crimes that include recklessness in the mens rea
Specific = crimes where intention was the only form of mens rea

Question 19

According to DPP v Majewski’s definition of specific crimes, which offences would qualify as such?

Answer 19

Murder, s18 OAPA 1861 GBH with intent, and theft

Question 20

Lord Justice Hughes gave an alternative definition of specific intent crimes. What was his suggestion?

Answer 20

He suggested that specific intent crimes would show ‘a state of mind addressing something beyond the prohibited act itself, namely its consequences’.

Question 21

According to R v Heard would s1(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003, rape, be a specific or basic intent offence? Why?

Answer 21

Basic intent, because the defendant only needs to intend to commit the act. No intention is required to bring about a particular result or consequences.

Question 22

Which crimes should we designate as specific intent pending further clarification?

Answer 22

1. Murder
2. s18 GBH or wounding
3. Theft
4. Robbery
5. s9(1)(a) Burglary with intent to commit an offence under s9(2)
6. Criminal damage where there is only intention (no recklessness)
7. Any other offence that requires specific intent.

Question 23

Which crimes should we consider as basic intent crimes?

Answer 23

1. Unlawful act and Gross negligence manslaughter
2. Rape and sexual touching
3. s20 GBH or wounding
4. Assault occasioning ABH
5. Assault or battery
6. Criminal damage where either intention or recklessness is alleged

Question 24

Generally intoxication will not enable a defendant to rely on a defence but which defences may they rely on if they are intoxicated?

Answer 24

1. Loss of self-control (s54(1)(c) CJA) but their actions will be measured against that of a sober person exercising ordinary powers of self-control (R v Morhall);
2. Consent (but only because of a strange decision in R v Richardson and Irwin)
3. Statutory defences which allow for honest belief eg s5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act.

Question 25

Why does intoxication negate the defences of duress, self-defence, and normally consent?

Answer 25

The defendant’s mistake must be based on a reasonable belief and the reasonable man is never drunk.

Question 26

Why does intoxication negate the defence of diminished responsibility?

Answer 26

The defence is founded on abnormality of mental functioning. Intoxication does not qualify as a medically recognised mental illness.