Intoxication defence Flashcards
Kingston 1994
There is no intoxication defence where it is proven that the Defendant has the necessary mens rea “ a drunken intent is still an intent”
Facts: a pedophile was set up by colleages who didn’t like him, where D was invited to a hotel room with an unconscious child in it, D’s drink was spiked and he molested the child
HoL - drunk intent still intent
- the intoxication must be enough to negative the mens rea to escape liability
Majewski 1977
HoL - the defendants intoxication was a result of his own voluntary reckless act - the recklessness of getting intoxicated is sufficent mens rea for basic intent crimes
Lord Elwyn Jones: Simplest definition of basic and specific intent - basic intent are crimes which can be done via recklessness while specific require intent
Policy - courts are reluctant to put criminals away for a long sentence without proper mental capacity - specific intent is usually more serious
R v Allen 1988
Facts: drank wine but didn’t realise how strong it was so attempted to say his intoxication amounted to involuntary when he committed basic intent crimes
CoA: the drinking does not become involuntary just because D does not know its exact nature or strength
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963
Facts: D wanted to kill his wife, so he went and got very drunk to give himself the dutch courage to do it
HoL: as long as the D had the mens rea at the time of drinking and didn’t discard thats mens rea, he could be convicted
Lord Denning: defence is not available for specific/basic if drink/drugs taken to gain courage
R v Lipman 1970
Facrs: D took LSD while hallucinating he thought snakes were attacking him, instead of fighting off snakes he was actually stuffing bedsheets into his girlfriends mouth
Held: D didn’t have the mens rea for murder because it is a specific intent crime, but he was liable for manslaughter as it is a basic intent crime and therefore voluntary intoxication is sufficent for recklessness
R v Hardie 1985
Facts: D took sisters valium - usually meant to calm and send people to sleep and started a fire in a friends flat
Held: Whilst intoxication cannot usually be a defence for basic intent offences - the rule will not apply to drugs if the effect of the drug is merely soporific or sedative - the voluntary consumption of a dangerous drugs might be proof of recklessness, but this is not the case with non dangerous drugs
Court said question to ask is did D know they would become aggressive, unpredictable or out of control? no prediction of recklessness here
R v Hatton 2005
Facts:
Held: reaffirmed that a defendants drunken mistake cannot be relied upon for the purposes of self-defence
R v Morgan 1976
Different definition of what basic intent and specific intent crimes are
- A crime is of specific intent if its mens rea goes beyond the what is asked within the actus reus e.g. theft would be specific intent using this definition
R v Heard 2007
Facts: Police were called to D’s home where he was extremely intoxicated and had been self harming and causing a disturbance, when officers arrived, D took out and began to rub his penis on an officers thigh
- The judge labelled the offence one of basic intent which would mean D could not use intoxication as a defence, however the offence requires ‘intention to touch’
Lord Hughes said that not every offence can be categorised as simply specific or basic intent, adding that categorisation must be achieved on an offence by offence basis and there is a large policy element in this decision
Richardson & Irwin 1999
Facts: Drunk students hung friend over a bridge as a prank and he fell - used defence of mistaken belief that V would have consented
Held: Ignore intoxication but consider other evidence in deducing whether D was reckless, the question is not of what another person would foresee but would D have foreseen the risk of the circumstances if they were sober?
The fact that D appreciated the risk must still be proved by prosecution
