Intoxication and Self Defence/Evaluation Points Flashcards
What case is relevant to Dutch courage?
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)
What is the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) relevant to?
That is you have got drunk to get Dutch courage then the defence of intoxication will not be available to you
What case happened in 1963?
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)
In what year was the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher?
1963
What happened in the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher?
He drank most of a bottle of whisky to give him corsage to kill his wife and then stabbed her to death.
What was the outcome for AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)?
He was found guilty of murder, he still had the intention despite being drunk.
Can the defendant use the defence of mistake or self defence if they are intoxicated?
No
Why is the defence of mistake/self defence not available if you are intoxicated?
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.
What happened in the case of R v Grady (1987)?
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
In what year was the case of R v Grady?
1987
What case happened in 1987?
R v O’Grady
What is the case of R v O’Grady (1987) relevant to?
The defence of self defence not being available if you are intoxicated
Who clarified the law of self defence and intoxication in R v O’Grady (1987)?
Lord Lane
What confirms the rule in O’Grady (1987)?
The criminal justice and immigration act 2008
Is the defence of intoxication available when someone gets drunk for Dutch courage?
No
Briefly, what are the evaluation points?
Public policy driven Basic/specific intent distinction Defendants attitude to intoxication Difficulties for juries Inconsistencies
Explain the public policy evaluation point…
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
Explain the basic/specific intent distinction evaluation point…
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.
Explain the defendants attitude to intoxication…
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
Explain the difficulty for juries evaluation point…
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.
Explain the inconsistency evaluation point…
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
Who suggested a reform of the defence of intoxication?
Butler Committee in 1975
When did the Butler Committee suggest reform?
1975
What reform did the Butler Committee suggest?
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
