intoxication

Question 1

intoxication

Answer 1

• Known as a denial defence – Intoxication means that the D is relying on the fact they were incapable of forming the MR of the offence they are charged with – due to the fact they were intoxicated

Question 2

key questions/issues

Answer 2

• Why was D intoxicated?
• Was the intoxicant known to be dangerous?
• Was D at fault?
• Voluntary or involuntary intoxication?

Question 3

involuntary intoxication

Answer 3

• There is no liability if the involuntary intoxication caused the D not to form the MR for the offence
• Kingston (1994) – there must be absolutely no MR by the D – if there is, then liability remains. A drugged intent, is still intent.
• Allen (1988) – D made home made wine, and didn’t appreciate strength & committed sexual assault. Intoxication voluntary = liability

Question 4

voluntary intoxication

Answer 4

• If the intoxication is voluntary, then liability is dependent on whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent
• The distinction was first drawn in DPP v Beard (1920)

Question 5

specific intent

Answer 5

• Crimes requiring intent as the MR
• Murder, Theft, s18 OAPA etc
• Where reckless will not suffice
• Intoxication can be a defence (not automatically) to these crimes
• Only if they are so intoxicated to be incapable of forming the intent

Question 6

basic intent

Answer 6

• Intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent offences
• Offences include common assault, s.20, criminal damage, arson, sexual assault
• Generally offences which allow for recklessness of the D as an MR
• The MR in this case will always just be assumed by the courts

Question 7

dutch courage

Answer 7

• A-G v Gallagher made this very clear – if you drink to give yourself ‘Dutch courage’ to be able to commit an offence, you cannot then claim to not have been able to have formed the MR of said offence

Question 8

intoxication and self defence

Answer 8

• If the D is under the belief that they are under attack and therefore acting in self defence, they cannot rely on this mistake belief when it was induced by voluntary intoxication – this applies to both specific and basic intent
• R v O’Grady (1987) confirmed thus far