Intoxication Defence Flashcards
What are the 3 factors for intoxication to be considered as a defence
- The manner in which D became intoxicated
- The level of intoxication
- The type of offence committed whilst intoxicated
What is a specific intent offence
Offences which require specific intention for MR (eg murder, theft)
What is a basic intent offence
Offences for which recklessness is sufficient for MR (eg assault and battery)
What type of offence can voluntary intoxication negate
Specific intent
What case shows that voluntary intoxication can negate the MR for specific intent offences
DPP v Beard
What did Lord Birkenhead state in DPP v Beard for voluntary intoxication
‘If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required’, he could use intoxication as a defence
What is the case example for D being so drunk (voluntary) that he could not form MR
Sheenan and Moore
What is the case example of D having the MR despite being voluntarily intoxicated
Gallagher
Why does being voluntarily intoxicated NOT negate the MR for basic intent offences
Becoming intoxicated is considered reckless
What is the case example for voluntary intoxication NOT negating MR for a basic intent offence
Majewski
What is the test for involuntary intoxication
Did D have the required MR when he committed the offence
What is are 2 case examples for D having the MR despite being involuntarily intoxicated due to being spiked
Kingston
Allen
What is the case example of being involuntarily intoxicated due to prescription drugs
Bailey
What is the case example for D having an unexpected reaction to sleeping (soporific) drugs
Hardie
What country says that taking an intoxicating substance under duress is involuntary
USA
What case shows that the trial judge is not obligated to direct the jury about the possibility of intoxication unless D raises it himself
Groark
What case shows that D cannot use ‘intoxicated mistake’ for basic intent offences
Lipman
What case shows that there is no defence for D making a mistake as to the need for self-defence due to intoxication
O’Grady
What type of crimes use intoxication as a defence (Intro)
Fault-based crimes (crimes that require MR)
What does legal principle say about intoxication defence (Intro)
A D without MR should not be criminally responsible
What does Professor Ashworth state about intoxicated criminals in terms of public policy (Intro)
They should not have an ‘easy route to impunity’
Who is the burden of proof on to disprove the intoxication (Intro)
The burden of proof is on the prosecution
What does it mean if D is voluntarily intoxicated (AO1)
D chose to take the intoxicating substance
Why can voluntary intoxication not work for basic intent crimes (AO1)
Being voluntarily intoxicated is reckless
What did ‘Lord Birkenhead’ state (AO1)
‘If D was so drunk he was incapable of forming the intent required, he could not be convicted of a crime’
What was stated in ‘Gallagher’ (AO1)
Drunk intent is still intent
What does it mean to be involuntarily intoxicated (AO1)
D did not choose to take the intoxicating substance
What type of crimes does the intoxication defence negate the MR on (AO1)
Both specific intent and basic intent crimes
What is the test for involuntary intoxication (AO1)
Did D have the required MR when he committed the offence
What are the 4 ways D can be involuntarily intoxicated with the case(s) for each (AO1)
- D was spiked (Kingston, Allen)
- D took prescription drugs (Bailey)
- D had an unexpected reaction to soporfic drugs (Hardie)
- D took the intoxicating substance under duress (USA precedent)
What are the 4 points for Intoxication evaluation (AO3)
- Rules do not work for all offences
- Level of intoxication
- Leniency for involuntary intoxication
- Decision in Kingston
What is the evidence for the rules not working for all offences (AO3)
Defence is allowed for murder but not manslaughter
What is the explanation for the rules not working for all offences (AO3)
Murder is downgraded to manslaughter
What is the link back to the question for the rules not working for all offences (AO3)
Does balance the law to some extent as manslaughter is still punished, but some criminals can use this as an escape route
What are the 2 examples of evidence for level of intoxication (AO3)
DPP v Beard looks at whether D was ‘so intoxicated that they could not form the MR’
AND
Gallagher states a drunken mistake is still an intent
What is the explanation for level of intoxication (AO3)
Janet Loveless says ‘if D is so intoxicated they cannot form specific intent – then they can’t form recklessness either!’
What is the link back to the question for level of intoxication (AO3)
Balances the law to a large extent as people who are intoxicated should be held accountable for actions unless completely unable to form intent.
What is the evidence for leniency for involuntary intoxication (AO3)
D is seen as a victim themselves as they may have been spiked or had unwanted effects from prescription
What is the explanation for leniency for involuntary intoxication (AO3)
BUT decision in Hardie was criticised by Law Commission – taking another’s medication is reckless
What is the link back to the question for leniency for involuntary intoxication (AO3)
Does NOT balance to some extent as Hardie’s actions were still reckless yet he was able to use the defence – leniency allows some offenders ‘off the hook’
What is the evidence for the decision in Kingston (AO3)
Even though Kingston was a ‘victim’ himself as he was ‘spiked’, he still had MR
What is the explanation for the decision in Kingston (AO3)
Professor Clarkson argues that he should have been able to use the defence as he was a ‘victim’. The HOL disagreed on public policy grounds
What is the link back to the question for the decision in Kingston (AO3)
Does strike a balance as the nature of the crime was severe and D did to some extent form the MR
What are 2 potential reform’s for the intoxication defence
1) Ensure all specific intent crimes have a corresponding basic intent crime
2) Some argue it should be a full defence for all offences where the defendant is incapable of forming any men’s rea
What did the Butler Committee suggest as a reform
The Butler Committee suggested creating a new offence of ‘dangerous intoxication’ with a sentence of 1 year imprisonment for the first offence, rising to 3 years for further offences
What is the name of the report the Law Commission made as a reform for Intoxication
‘Intoxication and Criminal Liability’ 2009 Report
What did the Law Commission suggest as a reform in the ‘Intoxication and Criminal Liability’ 2009 Report
1) abolish the specific/basic intent distinction, but keep the voluntary/involuntary distinction
2) when intoxication is raised, it will be presumed to be voluntary intoxication unless the defence can prove they were involuntarily intoxicated on the balance of probabilities
What is the conclusion of the evaluation for Intoxication
Generally, the defence of intoxication does strike a fair balance between legal principle and public policy
This is due to the fact that most of the law in this area is common law so it can be altered to suit changing social attitudes.
