Intoxication EVALUATION Flashcards
Explanation
Intoxication is a general defence which can reduce or remove liability as long as it negates D’s mens rea. There are 2 types of intoxication: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is where D knowingly chooses to get intoxicated, whereas involuntary is where D does not make this choice (i.e. they are spiked). The intoxication in Allen was not involuntary because D still knew he was drinking something alcoholic and so it was not completely involuntary. Comparatively, there was involuntary intoxication in Hardie because D did not know of the effects of the drug he had taken. Intoxication also works differently depending on if the crime committed was specific intent (i.e. it can only be proven with intent) or basic intent (where recklessness is enough). In Lipman it was shown that voluntary intoxication can be a defence to a specific intent crime as long as D lacks mens rea. However, if D still had the mens rea despite being intoxicated, Gallagher shows that the defence will not apply because drunken intent is still intent. Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence for basic intent crimes because D will have been reckless in choosing to get intoxicated in the first place, as established in DPP v Majewski. Involuntary intoxication can be a defence to both specific and basic intent crimes, as D has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated. Again though, if D still has the mens rea despite being intoxicated, the defence will fail like in Kingston.
Different treatment of drunken mistakes
CAUSE: Conflict of intoxication as a defence on its own and intoxication playing a role in the defence of self-defence. EXAMPLE: AN intoxicated mistake about what D was doing was a defence for murder in Lipman, but a mistake about needing to use force in O’Grady stopped D being able to use self-defence. CONSEQUENCE: This is an inconsistency which creates uncertainty. D making an intoxicated mistake about the need to use force to defend themselves should be less blameworthy if he genuinely thinks he is defending himself. Additionally, D can legally rely on a foolish mistake about the need to use force to defend oneself but only if they are sober. This seems inconsistent when a D can use intoxication as a defence for murder but can’t use it to explain a drunken error when defending yourself, even if the self-defence just takes the form of a battery or ABH. COUNTERPOINT: However, this can be seen as a policy decision because the law does not want a general excuse of drunken mistakes to be used by Ds to excuse the use of force where it is not in reality appropriate.
Conflict between coincidence and the Majewski rule
CAUSE: If you become voluntarily intoxicated and then commit a basic intent offence you will automatically be deemed as having the recklessness of mens rea for the offence even though there may be a substantial gap in time between drinking and offending, going against the normal rules of coincidence. EXAMPLE: In O’Grady, D was deemed to have had the mens rea when drinking earlier in the day, and the actus reus later on when he attacked V. This would normally fall foul of the rules of coincidence but D was still guilty of a basic intent crime under the Majewski rule. CONSEQUENCE: This causes confusion and uncertainty as it goes against the normal rules of coincidence which state that the actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time. COUNTERPOINT: However, there are well established exceptions to the rules of coincidence already (Thabo Meli) so another exception is not a dramatic intervention and there is also a policy decision here to make people responsible for their reckless actions when drunk.
Inconsistent distinctions between voluntary and involuntary intoxication when dealing with specific intent crimes
CAUSE: By focusing on whether or not the mens rea exists , the distinction between voluntary/involuntary intoxication stops a person claiming a defence for involuntary performing the actus reus due to intoxication (i.e. where involuntary intoxication loosened the Ds inhibitions). EXAMPLE: In Gallagher – D chose to drink for ‘dutch courage’ whereas in Kingston D’s coffee was spiked. However, he was convicted of a crime because ‘drunken intent is still intent. CONSEQUENCE: In Kingston, while the man obviously had a predilection for the offences he committed he was able to keep these in check when sober but committed an offence when involuntarily intoxicated, even though one could argue he only committed the actus reus due to intoxication. Kingston seems to have been much less blameworthy than Gallagher who had an ‘active’ mens rea when he drank. COUNTERPOINT: However, if D still had the mens rea (even if it was usually held tightly in check) despite intoxication, the intoxication is not really relevant anyway and so it should not matter how they were intoxicated.
Involuntary intoxication is confusing
CAUSE: On the one hand, the law says intoxication must be completely involuntary but if you are unaware of the possible effects of something you are taking this still counts as voluntary intoxication. EXAMPLE: In Allen, he did not know the strength of the alcohol he was drinking so this could not be involuntary. In Hardie, D took drugs that had unexpected effects but this was held to be involuntary. CONSEQUENCE: These distinctions between types of involuntary intoxication are very confusing and create more uncertainty. COUNTERPOINT: The Law Commission has recommended abolishing the rule in Allen and creating more, but much clearer, types of involuntary intoxication to handle different situations.
