Intoxication and Self Defence/Evaluation Points

Question 1

What case is relevant to Dutch courage?

Answer 1

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

Question 2

What is the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) relevant to?

Answer 2

That is you have got drunk to get Dutch courage then the defence of intoxication will not be available to you

Question 3

What case happened in 1963?

Answer 3

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

Question 4

In what year was the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher?

Answer 4

1963

Question 5

What happened in the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher?

Answer 5

He drank most of a bottle of whisky to give him corsage to kill his wife and then stabbed her to death.

Question 6

What was the outcome for AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)?

Answer 6

He was found guilty of murder, he still had the intention despite being drunk.

Question 7

Can the defendant use the defence of mistake or self defence if they are intoxicated?

Answer 7

No

Question 8

Why is the defence of mistake/self defence not available if you are intoxicated?

Answer 8

Lord Lane felt that because it was a complete defence if a defendant was allowed to make a drunk mistake it could act as an excuse for dangerous criminals and families would feel they have not received justice. It’s a clarification of the law and tightens up loop holes.

Question 9

What happened in the case of R v Grady (1987)?

Answer 9

The defendant and his friend had been drinking heavily. He awoke to his friend so hit him with an ashtray. The next morning he found his friend dead

Question 10

In what year was the case of R v Grady?

Answer 10

1987

Question 11

What case happened in 1987?

Answer 11

R v O’Grady

Question 12

What is the case of R v O’Grady (1987) relevant to?

Answer 12

The defence of self defence not being available if you are intoxicated

Question 13

Who clarified the law of self defence and intoxication in R v O’Grady (1987)?

Answer 13

Lord Lane

Question 14

What confirms the rule in O’Grady (1987)?

Answer 14

The criminal justice and immigration act 2008

Question 15

Is the defence of intoxication available when someone gets drunk for Dutch courage?

Answer 15

No

Question 16

Briefly, what are the evaluation points?

Answer 16

Public policy driven 
Basic/specific intent distinction
Defendants attitude to intoxication 
Difficulties for juries 
Inconsistencies

Question 17

Explain the public policy evaluation point…

Answer 17

Public policy usually prevails over legal principles because judges want to protect those from dangerous drunk individuals, e.g 2/3 of murder convictions involved the defendant being drunk. It’s a fine line between recognising a lack of full control and a deterrent message about using intoxicants

Question 18

Explain the basic/specific intent distinction evaluation point…

Answer 18

The distinction between the two appears neither logical or consistently applied. It is unclear that for crimes of basic intent the mens rea can be recklessness or intention but the mens rea for specific intent crimes is intention.

Question 19

Explain the defendants attitude to intoxication…

Answer 19

There’s no distinction between a person who intends to lose self-control and someone who intends to socially drunk but ends up being drunk. On normal principles of criminal liability, the first would seem more blame worthy but they’re treated the same.

However, if the blanket approach needs to be in place otherwise people could manipulate the system and claim they only wanted to socially drink when in fact that wasn’t there intention

Question 20

Explain the difficulty for juries evaluation point…

Answer 20

Currently the law requires judges to use guesswork to establish if the defendant had the required mens rea. This greatly works in favour of the argument the defence of intoxication should be abolished. There is no real law in these decisions.

Question 21

Explain the inconsistency evaluation point…

Answer 21

The fallback offence approach can act as a reasonable compromise. However it means defendants aren’t punished accordingly. And in some instances e.g theft there are no fall back offences so the defendant is acquitted

Question 22

Who suggested a reform of the defence of intoxication?

Answer 22

Butler Committee in 1975

Question 23

When did the Butler Committee suggest reform?

Answer 23

1975

Question 24

What reform did the Butler Committee suggest?

Answer 24

A defence for dangerous intoxication should be created. So the defence admits to committing the actus reus but was so intoxicated they are unable to form the mens rea. So the jury could acquit them or find them guilty of dangerous intoxication