Intoxication Defence

Question 1

What is intoxication

Answer 1

D drinks /takes drugs and then claims they cannot form the necessary men’s Rea and should not be responsible.

Question 2

What is the 3 part test

Answer 2

Type of intoxication: voluntary or involuntary
Type of crime: specific or basic
Any exceptions: intoxicated mistake or self-defence

Question 3

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 3

D takes drugs/drinks of their own free will
Defence will fail
D cannot rely on the fact they did not know the substance they were taking was stronger than they thought (Allen)

Question 4

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 4

• D does not know they are taking drugs or alcohol
• Defence may succeed if it can be proven D did not form the necessary Mr of the crime due to the effect of involuntary intoxication
• Includes: D’s drink was spiked without knowledge, takes prescribed drug in accordance with the instructions, takes a non-dangerous drug in a non-reckless way.

Question 5

Basic intent crimes

Answer 5

• Any crime which can include recklessness
• No defence for basic intent crimes - defence will fail. Voluntary intoxication is considered reckless, recklessness is not enough for this defence (majewski)

Question 6

Specific intent crimes

Answer 6

Specific intent = anything from s18 GBH and above, also includes burglary and theft.
Only be a defence for specific intent crimes where the courts believe that the D was so drunks, he was unable to form the necessary intention in which case they can convict of a lesser charge (Sheehan & Moore)

Question 7

Intoxicated mistake

Answer 7

• An intoxicated mistake will not provide a defence to a crime of basic intent (Kingston)
• I’ll will only provide a defence to a specific intent crime if they don’t form the MR before (Lipman)

Question 8

Intoxication and self-defence

Answer 8

If the drunken mistake is about self-defence itself, s76(5) criminal justice and immigration act 2008 states that D will never have a defence to a basic or specific intent crime (O’Grady)