Intoxication Flashcards
Test
D must show that the alcohol, drugs or compensation of both made them incapable of forming the mr of the relevant offence
If despite their intoxicated state, they were still able to form mens rea, the defence will not apply - r v Kingston
R v Sheehan and Moore
Was held that “a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent”
Voluntary intoxication
Applies to d who has voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs commonly known to make people aggressive or out of control. It doesn’t matter that D may have misjudged the degree to which he would become intoxicated
R v Allen - D voluntarily drank wine, but was much stronger than he realised. He had drunk it voluntarily, knowing it was wine
Involuntary intoxication
Examples
Spiked with alcohol or drugs
Prescription drugs
Unexpected reaction to soporific drugs
R v hardie - d took some tablets to calm down, was a sedative drug and it’s usual effect is to make the person drowsy, in this case it failed to have its usual effect and D set fire to his flat. He was unaware it would have that effect
Specific intent
Mr of the offence is intention only, murder and s18 gbh
Basic intent
Mr of the offence includes recklessness - involuntary manslaughter, s20 gbh, s47 Abh, battery and assault
Intoxication and specific intent crimes
Voluntary intoxication may provide a defence to specific intent offences if d was unable to form mens rea. Voluntary intoxication if no defence if the defendant would have realised the particular risk had he not been intoxicated
DPP v majewski leading case ‘majewski rule’
Rule is that a voluntarily intoxicated person will be liable for any offence requiring basic intent regardless of the fact that he acted without the mens rea required for that offence.
A voluntarily intoxicated person will be guilty of a basic intent offence if the effect of drunk or drugs was to prevent him from foreseeing what he would have foreseen had he been sober
Voluntary intoxication can negate mens rea for a crime of specific intent
Dutch courage
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher D bought a knife to kill his wife (mr) and a bottle of whisky to give himself Dutch courage. He had already formed the intent when he decided to kill his wife and so could not use the defence
Burden of proof
Rest with D who must provide evidence of his intoxication before the defence can be put to the jury
Standard of proof
Once there is some evidence of intoxication, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that, despite intoxication, D still formed the mens rea
Effect
Varies according to the type of crime that D is charged with
If D was voluntarily intoxicated and incapable of forming mr, then he has defence to specific but not basic
If d is charged with a specific intent crime that does not have a corresponding basic intent crime - e.g. theft, then intoxication can provide a complete defence.
If d is involuntarily intoxicated and incapable of forming mr, then he will have a defence to both specific and basic
