the defence of intoxication Flashcards
what may happen if a person has drunk a large amount of alcohol/taken a significant dose of another drug
lower their inhibitions/cause them to be unaware of what theyre doing
what is possible if one commits the actus reus of an offence in an intoxicated state
they will not have the necessary mens rea
what is the basic legal principle related to MR
one shouldn’t be convicted in the absence of mens rea
when may someone be said to be blameworthy in an intoxicated state despite not having the mens rea for the offence
if they chose to get into such a state in the first place
what are the two types of intention in intoxication
specific and basic
examples of specific intent crimes
- murder
- s.18 OAPA
- theft
- fraud by false representation
- dishonesty obtaining a service
- making off without payment
- robbery
- burglary
- criminal damage with intention/recklessness as to endangering life
examples of basic intent crimes
all other offences on the course
intoxication cannot be a defence unless you are intoxicated to such a level that…
you could not and did not form the mens rea for the offence in question
what does the law draw an important distinction between
an intoxicated person who does not know what he is doing and one who knowingly embarks on criminal conduct because his intoxication has lowered his inhibitions/self control mechanisms
what case was the principle about distinctions between levels of intoxication
SHEEHAN AND MOORE
SHEEHAN AND MOORE
- 2 men set fire to a tramp with petrol
- held to be so drunk that they could not have formed the intention to kill/inflict GBH
- convicted of manslaughter
case where d has mens rea despite intoxication
GALLAGHER
GALLAGHER
- man drank bottle of whisky for ‘dutch courage’ to kill wife
- despite intoxication he still had MR when he killed her- intoxication not a defence and convicted of murder
if the mens rea was formed is intoxication a defence?
no
if mens rea was not formed what question must then be asked
voluntary/involuntary intoxication?
what will voluntary intoxication be a defence to
specific intent crimes
cannot be a defence to a basic intent crime
why can voluntary intoxication not be a defence to basic intent
d seen as recklessness in getting intoxicated and so will suffice MR for later offence
examples of when a person can become intoxicated involuntarily
- reaction to a prescribed drug
- unpredicted reaction to a normally sedative drug
- spiked food or drinks
case where d has an unpredicted reaction to a normally sedative drug
hardie
case involving spiked food/drinks
kingston
when will an involuntarily intoxicated person have a complete defence to any crime
if this negates the mens rea for the offence
will a voluntarily intoxicated person be convicted even if the mens rea is negated
yes
will involuntary intoxicated be a defence
not unless the mens rea is negated
principle in kingston
a drunken intention is an intention nevertheless
does the current law make allowances for those who lose self control by involuntary intoxication
no its not a defence
if the mens rea to a specific offence is negated by voluntary intoxication, what question must be asked
is it a complete/ partial defence
what is open to the jury if they decide that intoxication did negate the MR for a crime of specific intent
to convict the accused of a lesser crime of basic intent
which case was d accused of a lesser crime of basic intent
LIPMAN
LIPMAN
- held not to have specific intent to kill a human and was acquitted of murder
- involuntary manslaughter is basic intent and he was convicted of this
what is the lesser, basic intent offence for theft
isn’t one- intoxication is a complete defence
basic intent fall back offence s.18 OAPA
S.20 OAPA
are there any fallback offences for theft and robbery
no
what does the defence of intoxication cover
intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances such as glue sniffing
is intoxication strictly a defence
no but can be used as such if it negates ds mens rea
what type of defence is intoxication
a general defence and d will be acquitted if it succeeds
who is the burden on when D raises the defence of intoxication
on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D still had the necessary mens rea
what does whether d can use the defence depend on
- whether intoxication was voluntary/involuntary
- whether the offence charged is one of specific/basic intent
in what case was the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes made
DPP v MAJEWSKI
what are specific intent offences generally
those where mens rea is intent only
what are basic intent offences generally
those where the mens rea includes recklessness
what is voluntary intoxication
where d has chosen to take the intoxicating substance. it can also occur where D knows that the effect of a prescribed drug will be to make her intoxicated
what is involuntary intoxication
where d did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance
what will d have a defence to if he is voluntarily intoxicated
a specific intent crime provided he is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence SHEEHAN AND MOORE
SHEEHAN AND MOORE
the Ds were very drunk when they threw petrol over a homeless person and set fire. V died as a result. they were too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or any intent to cause GBH.
THE C/A HELD THAT BECAUSE DS DIDNT HAVE MR FOR MURDER, INTOXICATION WAS A DEFENCE TO THAT SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME
why is D guilty of the specific intent offence where he has the necessary mens rea despite his intoxication
the intoxication does not provide a defence- AG FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V GALLAGHER
AG FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V GALLAGHER
d bought a knife to kill his wife and also a bottle of whisky to give himself ‘dutch courage’ to carry out the murder- he drank a large amount of whisky before killing his wife
his conviction for murder upheld by H/L- drunken intent is still an intent
is voluntary intoxication a defence where the offence charged is one of basic intent
no- D seen as reckless in getting intoxicated so has the mens rea for the basic intent offence- DPP V MAJEWSKI
DPP V MAJEWSKI
- d taken alcohol and drugs
- in very intoxicated state he attacked people in a pub and also police officers who tried to arrest him
- d claimed he had no recollection of events due to his intoxication
- convicted of various offences
- H/L upheld all his convictions- voluntary intoxication not a defence to these basic intent offences
when will involuntary intoxication not provide a defence
if d had the necessary mens rea at the time of the offence. this is so even though D would not have committed the offence without the intoxication lowering his resistance to committing the offence- KINGSTON
KINGSTON
- ds coffee spiked and he then abused a teenage boy and was charged with indecent assault
- argued he wouldn’t have done it had he not been drugged
- h/l upheld conviction for indecent assault
- d still formed MR for offence so involuntary intox not a defence
- fact that intoxicating substance removed inhibitions was not enough
where d didn’t have the necessary MR due to his involuntary intoxication, he will not be guilty of
a specific intent offence nor a basic intent offence- HARDIE
HARDIE
- d depressed because his gf told him to move out of her flat
- took some of Vs valium tablets to calm himself down
- went on to set fire to a wardrobe in flat whilst V was asleep in room
- conviction of basic intent for criminal damage being reckless as to endangering life quashed by C/A
- taken valium tablets not knowing they could make behaviour inpredictable
- involuntarily intoxicated and lacked necessary MR at time of setting fire to wardrobe
