Intoxication (MC)

Question 1

When can a person be intoxicated?

Answer 1

-Alcohol
-drugs
-Other substances like sniffing glue

Question 2

Why is intoxication a defence?

Answer 2

-D is so intoxicated by drink and drugs or other substances that they were incapable of forming men’s rea of the offence

Question 3

If the defendant doesn’t have the men’s rea due to intoxication then he might have a defence.
What does the defence depend on?

Answer 3

1. Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
2. The offence charged is one of specific or basic intent

Question 4

What is basic intent?

Answer 4

-Recklessness is part of the mens rea
-Eg manslaughter, s20 and s47 OAPA 1861 assault, battery, criminal damage

Question 5

What are specific intent crimes?

Answer 5

These have intent only as the mens Rea
-eg murder and s18 GBH OAPA 1861

Question 6

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 6

-D chose to take the intoxicating substance and the dft knows what the effect of taking it will have on them (unpredictability/aggressiveness)
-also taking a non dangerous drug can be voluntary is the dft knows the effects

Question 7

Name the case where Lord Birkenhead set a test for voluntary intoxication and what the test was

Answer 7

-DPP v Beard
-If the dft was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved.

Question 8

What is the case for intoxication must negate mens Rea?

Answer 8

-R v Sheehan and Moore
-D’s were drunk and threw petrol over homeless man and set fire to it
-Too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or cause GBH.
-intoxication prevented them from forming the mens Rea
-Guilty manslaughter which is basic intent

Question 9

Explain drunken intent is still intent

Answer 9

Where the dft has the necessary mens rea despite intoxicated state then still guilty of an offence

Question 10

What are the case names for drunken intent is still intent?

Answer 10

-A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
-R v Coley
-Allen

Question 11

A-G for Nothern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 11

-Dft decided to kill wife. Was psychopath and released from hospital. Knew alcohol made him worse and violent
-Bought a knife and bottle whiskey
-Drank large amount to give him Dutch courage before killing
-conviction upheld as formed the intent before becoming intoxicated

Question 12

R v Coley

Answer 12

-Regularly used cannabis and played violent video game
-Entered neighbour’s house and attacked her and partner with knife
-Said he blacked out and had no recollection
-Psych evidence said he could’ve had brief psychotic episode from cannabis and could’ve been acting role of vid game
-convicted of attempted murder as state of mind caused by involuntary intoxication

Question 13

Allen

Answer 13

-D charged w buggery and indecent assault after drinking in pub and given wine after by friend
-Said he didn’t realise the strength of the wine. Didn’t make it involuntary intoxication

Question 14

What can voluntary intoxication be a defence to? Case names

Answer 14

-Specific intent crime but can’t be a defence to basic intent ones
-Majewski
-Richardson and Irwin

Question 15

Majewski.

Answer 15

-D consumed amount of alcohol and drugs. Attacked landlord of pub and the police who arrested him. Damaged the pub and police station
-All offences were basic intent
-D claimed no memory of what he had done
-Becoming intoxicated by alcohol and drugs reckless and reckless enough for basic intent offences
-Couldn’t use defence

Question 16

Richardson and Irwin

Answer 16

-D’s threw V down balcony when drunk
-Charged with inflicting GBH
-Judge directed that they had to be sure that D’s were reckless according to standards of reasonable and sober man
-Appeal allowed, convictions quashed as the judge should’ve directed that jury need to be sure that the D’s would’ve foreseen the risk had they been sober

Question 17

Explain past intoxication

Answer 17

-Where the defendant is suffering mental disorder brought on by pat voluntary intoxication, they can use this as a defence

Question 18

What is the case for past intoxication?

Answer 18

-R v Harris
-Convicted of murder of 2 year old. Accepted he kicked but denied murder
-Evidence that liver had been torn in two
-Bruises on face and bite marks to cheek and arm which P suggested inflicted before murder
-Harris killed her bc so angry that repeatedly soiled herself.

Question 19

What situations does involuntary intoxication include?

Answer 19

-D doesn’t know that they are consuming an intoxicant (drink been spiked or forced into consuming it)
-D consumes an intoxicating substance under medical advice or an intoxicant commonly known to be a sedative and it has an unexpected effect

Question 20

Non-dangerous drugs

Answer 20

-Where D takes a non-dangerous drug, although not prescribed to him the taking may be treated as involuntary and may therefore provide a defence if he does so non-recklessly.

Question 21

Case for non - dangerous drugs

Answer 21

-Hardie
-Took Valium tablets because of depression and set fire to wardrobe (basic intent) DFT had not been reckless and jury should consider the defence of automatism

Question 22

What is the case for whether D had the necessary MR when he committed the offence?

Answer 22

-Kingston
-Invited to house where drink was drugged by person who wanted to blackmail. Man had paedophilic tendencies, was shown a 15yr old boy unconscious and invited to abuse him. He did so and was photographed. Convicted as if formed MR for offence before being intox then invol intox not a defence. Conviction quashed as he had never acted on tendencies before and was not his fault

Question 23

Mistaken rule
List 3 cases and one exception

Answer 23

-Intoxicated mistake: if the dft mistaken about key fact because intox then depends on what the mistake is about. Defence to specific intent where mistake about something which mean didn’t have MR, when basic intent then no defence
-R v Lipman
-R v O’Grady
-R v Hatton
-Exception: Jaggard v Dickinson

Question 24

R v Lipman

Answer 24

-D and gf took LSD. Stuffed sheet down her throat as he thought he was fighting snakes at centre of earth. Charged w murder and UAM but acquitted as not able to form MR. Convicted manslaughter as basic intent offence where vol intox is no defence

Question 25

R v O’Grady

Answer 25

-After dft and v drunk heavily, fell asleep. Dft claimed woke up to V hitting him so picked up glass ashtray and hit him, went back to sleep, when woke up next day saw friend dead.
-On charge of manslaughter court said dft not allowed to rely on a mistaken of fact induced by involuntary intoxication

Question 26

R v Hatton

Answer 26

-Dft drank 20 pints of beer, he and V went back to DFT’s flat. In morning claimed to find V dead from injuries caused by sledge hammer. Said couldn’t really remember what happened but thought V had hit him with rlly long stick so defended self
-Convicted of murder as decision in O’Grady not limited to basic intent offences and also applied to specific intent
-Drunken mistake about the amount of force required for self defence not defence.

Question 27

Exception to the rule on drunken mistake: Jaggard V Dickinson
-Act and section which confirms it

Answer 27

-D out drinking for evening, stranded with no money or lift home. Went to friends and knocked on the door, no answer. Believing friend would consent, broke in.
-House did not belong to friend
-S 5 (2)(a) Crim damage act - lawful excuse if believe person who owned property would consent

Question 28

When will DFT not be guilty with invol intox?

Answer 28

If they did not have the necessary intent. No MR so can’t be guilty of specific intent nor basic intent. Dft not been reckless in getting intoxicated

Question 29

What act states about self defence and intoxication?
What section states about self defence and what section states about self defence with intoxication?

Answer 29

-Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
-S76 reasonable force may be used for purposes of self-defence…
-S76(5) states ‘does not enable the defendant to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced’

Question 30

What do the words “attributable to intoxication” mean?

Answer 30

-Broad enough to encompass a mistaken state of mind due to:
1. Being drunk or intoxicated at the time
2. Immediately or after earlier drinking or drug taking so even though not drunk, short term effects could have triggered subsequent episodes

Question 31

Case for attributable to intoxication and not drunk at the time

Answer 31

-Taj
-Abused drugs as child, led to psychosis
-Drank heavily and later while in grip of post-intoxication psychosis became convinced man was terrorist
-attacked and nearly killed, pleaded self defence. Appeal failed