intoxication (includes evaluation)

Question 1

what two types of intoxication are there

Answer 1

voluntary intoxication, involuntary intoxication

Question 2

when can a defendant rely on the partial defence of voluntary intoxication

Answer 2

specific intent crime

Question 3

what is a specific intent crime

Answer 3

when d’s mr was intent only (eg burlary, murder, s18 gbh

Question 4

what is a crime of basic intent

Answer 4

recklessness will be sufficient for mr, eg assault or battery

Question 5

what is a leading case for intoxication for specific intent cirmes

Answer 5

SSP v Beard, D’s charge of murder was lifted to manslaughter due to his state of intoxication. ‘drunkenness renderring the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration’

Question 6

what is a leading case for voluntary intoxication for basic intent crimes

Answer 6

DDP v Majewski, D got into a fight after taking drugs and drinking alcahol all night. he was charged with assault on numerous accounts. he was guilty because voluntary intoxication could not be a defence for basic intent crimes as he was reckless in intoxication himself. Lord Elwyn Jones said a man who has voluntarily ‘destroyed and debauched his will’ will be regarded in the same way as a sober man for his criminal actions.

Question 7

when will intoxication not be a defence to any crime and what is the case for this

Answer 7

when the defendant has intoxicated themselves for dutch courage in order to help them commit the crime. The case of gallagher when the defendant bought a knife and a bottle of whisky with the intention to kill his wife. when sufficiently intoxicated he stabbed and killed his wife. Intoxication was not a partial defence to his murder because the MR for murder was formed at the relevant time.

Question 8

what is the leading case for past intoxication

Answer 8

R v hharris, D was convicted of committing arson and being reckless as to whether the life of another was endangered. He had previosuly been a heavy drinker and claimed that he suffered with alcahol induced hallucinations. COA quashed conviction because it was unfair to say his mental disorders were self induced.

Question 9

what is the case for dutch courage

Answer 9

the case of gallagher when d bought a bottle of whisky and a knife with the intention of killing his wife. Once sufficiently drunk, he stabbed his wife to death. His conviction of murder was upheld because he formed his mens rea at the relevant point.

Question 10

explain a flaw in the distinction between specific and basic intent

Answer 10

The distinction between MR of intention and recklessness was first put forward as a way of distinguishing between specific and basic intent in the case of Caldwell but the COA later favoured the ‘purpose’ test in the case of Heard when lord simon referred to an ‘elusive distinction’ between basic and specific intent. The development of law via judicial precedent has confused the distinction; it is unclear whether the new Heard test has replaced the old Caldwell test. For the purposes of intoxication, it will be difficult for a legally uneducated jury to understand the concept of basic and specific intent, which could lead to uninformed or unfair verdicts in cases involving an intoxication defence. It could also be difficult for lawyers to advise defendants.

Question 11

when will a defendant not have a defence of involuntary intoxication

Answer 11

when despite the state of intoxication, d still formed the relevant MR (hannah discovered only later that someone had spiked her drink)

Question 12

what four scenarios will be regarded as being involuntarily intoxicated

Answer 12

1. spiked- full acquittal unless d still formed relevant MR
2. taken prescribed drugs- full acquittal unless D took medication recklessly
3. unexpected reaction to soporific drugs- if D does not see that the drug might have an unexpected effect then he will be considered involuntarily intoxicated
4. taken drugs under duress- there is no english precedent for this matter but US law says that intoxication under duress will be considered involuntary

Question 13

what is the leading case for being spiked

Answer 13

r v kingston (k for kids), D had pedophilic tendancies and his coffee was spiked, his blackmailer then invited him to assault a 15 year old boy and he did> His blackmail photographed the assault. His conviction was upheld because despite his involuntary intoxicated state he formed the relevant MR. He was still liable even thoguh he would not have completed the action if he was sober. This decision has been criticised by academics such as proffessor clarkson.

Question 14

what is the leading case for taking prescribed medication

Answer 14

r v bailey (gBh), D committed gbh after taking his prescribed insulin and not eating properly afterwards. If his reaction to the drug was unforeseen then he would’ve been acquitted but he know the dangerous nature of not eating after taking insulin. COA changed his conviction from s18 gbh to s20 gbh due to his recklessness.

Question 15

what is the leading case for an unexpected reaction to soporific drugs

Answer 15

R v Hardie, D suffered from depression and had taken prescribed valium when he committed arson. COA quashed his conviction because his reaction to the valium was unforeseen.

Question 16

whats the leading case for an intoxicated mistake

Answer 16

the case of r v lipman where d killed his girlfriend whilst on lsd, thinking that she was a snake.

Question 17

what is a key criticism for voluntary intox as a defence

Answer 17

public policy dictates that it would be wrong to excuse criminal activity because of voluntary intoxication as this would compromise public protection and the promotion of justice. Although voluntary intox will provide a partial defence to SI crimes due to a lack of relevant MR, the ‘fallback’ rule allows for these criminals to still be convicted. For example, SI murder will be changed to BI manslaughter and SI s18 gbh to BI s20 gbh. However, a point of contradiction is cases of burglary and theft, where there is no ‘fallback conviction’. In these scenarios, a successful defence of VI will lead to the full acquittal of a defendant. This is a paradox to the public policy that the courts seek to employ.

Question 18

what is a key criticism of voluntary intoxicated not being a defence for BI crimes.

Answer 18

The assumption that D getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct immediately satisfies the MR for BI offences. However, this is said to be unfair because it disregards the rule that MR and AR of a crime must coincide; the MR of getting drunk may have occurred way before the crime was committed. Also, recklessness usually requires the D to acknowledge the risk of their actions and still proceed with them but the Majewski rules say that simply being intoxicated is enough to be guilty and no realisation of risk is required and the Law Commission has labelled this unfair. These inconsistencies in the law paint the courts in a bad light for generating unclarity towards judicial procedures. However, it is a matter of public interest to disallow voluntary intoxication as an excuse for criminal activity so in this respect the courts may gain favour for their dedication to protecting the public.

Question 19

what is a criticism of the rules for involuntary intoxication

Answer 19

The key principle of IV is that if D did not have MR, he should not be held accountable for his actions because the intoxication was through no fault of his own. It seems fair that the rules for IV are relaxed yet there are inconsistencies to this rule. For example, the case of Kingston is an example of a D who acted in a way that he wouldn’t have if he hadn’t been intoxicated but the courts seemed to ignore the fact that the intoxication was no fault of his own. The courts acted to serve public policy in this case so treated the D harshly. This decision has been widely criticised by academics such as Professor Clarkson. However, with an offence as serious as pedophilia it could be fair to compromise the general rules of IV as a matter of public protection and to maintain certain values held by the courts.

Question 20

suggest a potential reform to the rules of intoxication

Answer 20

The 1975 butler committee suggested that criminals who have been found not guilty of serious offences committed whilst intoxicated could instead be convicted of ‘dangerous intoxication’. This would allow for defendants that have committed a SI crime with no fallback offences available (burglary, theft) to still receive a conviction. The maximum prison sentence upon first offence would be 1 year.