Voluntary Intoxication

Question 1

Is the defence of intoxication available for Dutch courage?

Answer 1

No

Question 2

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 2

Where the defendant has chosen to take an intoxication substance such as drugs or alcohol or if they have taken a prescribed drug they know they will have an adverse reaction to

Question 3

What type of crime needs to have been committed for the defence of intoxication to be available to you?

Answer 3

A specific intent crime

Question 4

How has the law on voluntary intoxication changed?

Answer 4

It is now comparatively lenient as at one point it was not regarded as a defence at all

Question 5

Who first considered voluntary intoxication, specific intent crimes and the defence of intoxication?

Answer 5

Lord Birkenhead in DPP v Beard (1920)

Question 6

What did Lord Birkenhead say in DPP v Beard (1920)?

Answer 6

‘Evidence of the state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration to determine whether he in fact had the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime’

Question 7

What is the case of DPP v Beard (1920) relevant to?

Answer 7

Lord Birkenhead recognising that the defence could be available to specific intent crimes if one is involuntarily intoxicated

Question 8

What case happened in 1920?

Answer 8

DPP v Beard

Question 9

In what year was the case of DPP v Beard?

Answer 9

1920

Question 10

If you are voluntarily intoxicated, when is the defence available to you?

Answer 10

If it is a specific intent crime and the defendant does not have the required mens rea for the crime

Question 11

What case happened in 1975?

Answer 11

R v Sheehan

Question 12

In what year was the case of R v Sheehan?

Answer 12

1975

Question 13

What is the case of R v Sheehan (1975) relevant to?

Answer 13

‘A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’

Question 14

In what case was the jury directed that ‘a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’?

Answer 14

R v Sheehan (1975)

Question 15

What was established in the case of R v Sheehan (1975)?

Answer 15

‘A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’

Question 16

In relation to R v Sheehan (1975), explain ‘drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’…

Answer 16

If the defendant had intention when they were drunk, they still had intention - they must not have the mens rea. It helps clarify the law and that the defence asks more than just the question ‘would the defendants have committed the offence if they were sober?’

Question 17

What is the case of Bratty (1963) relevant to?

Answer 17

Denning clarifying the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes

Question 18

In what year was the case of R v Bratty?

Answer 18

1963

Question 19

What case took place in 1963?

Answer 19

R v Bratty

Question 20

In what case did Lord Denning help distinguish between basic and specific intent crimes?

Answer 20

R v Bratty (1963)

Question 21

What did Lord Denning say in the case of R v Bratty (1963)?

Answer 21

‘Specific intent crimes can only be committed intentionally, basic intent crimes can be committed recklessly’

Question 22

What is the leading case on involuntary intoxication and specific intent?

Answer 22

R v Lipman (1970)

Question 23

What case happened in 1970?

Answer 23

R v Lipman

Question 24

In what year did the case of R v Lipman take place?

Answer 24

1970

Question 25

What is the case of R v Lipman (1970) relevant to?

Answer 25

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes

Question 26

What happened in the case of R v Lipman (1970)?

Answer 26

Lipman and his girlfriend took LSD, he suffocated his girlfriend believing she was a snake attacking him as a result of hallucinations.

Question 27

What was the outcome of R v Lipman (1970)?

Answer 27

Lipman received a fallback offence of manslaughter rather than murder because he did not have the required mens rea of intention necessary for murder as he was high on drugs.

Question 28

Is the defence of intoxication available to those who are voluntarily intoxicated who have committed crimes of basic intent?

Answer 28

No

Question 29

What cases are relevant to voluntary intoxication and basic intent?

Answer 29

DPP v Majewski (1977) | R v Heard (2007)

Question 30

What case happened in 1977?

Answer 30

DPP v Majewski

Question 31

In what year did the case of DPP v Majewski happen?

Answer 31

1977

Question 32

What is the case of DPP v Majewski relevant to?

Answer 32

The Majewski rules being created

Question 33

What was the outcome of DPP v Majewski (1977)?

Answer 33

The House of Lords rejected that the defendant didn't have the necessary mens rea because he was intoxicated and thus created the Majewski rule, that if you reckless in becoming so intoxicated you do not know what you are doing the recklessness needed for the mens rea of the crime is substituted by the defendants reckless behaviour in getting so intoxicated.

Question 34

What is the Majewski rule?

Answer 34

That if you reckless in becoming so intoxicated you do not know what you are doing the recklessness needed for the mens rea of the crime is substituted by the defendants reckless behaviour in getting so intoxicated.

Question 35

What are examples of crimes of specific intent?

Answer 35

Murder Wounding with intent Causing GBH with intent Theft, robbery and burglary attempts

Question 36

What is the mens rea for specific intent crimes?

Answer 36

Intention

Question 37

What are examples of crimes of basic intent?

Answer 37

``` Involuntary manslaughter Rape Wounding (s20) Inflicting GBH (s20) ABH Assault and battery Criminal damage ```

Question 38

What is the mens rea for crimes of basic intent?

Answer 38

Primarily recklessness but it can be intention (but ignore the intention part really as that makes it unclear)

Question 39

What is the case of R v Heard (2007) relevant to?

Answer 39

The Majewski principle being put to use and that the defence of intoxication not being available to you if you have voluntarily become intoxicated and have committed a basic intent crime

Question 40

What case happened in 2007?

Answer 40

R v Heard

Question 41

In what year was the case of R v Heard?

Answer 41

2007

Question 42

What case is an example of the Majewski principle at use?

Answer 42

R v Heard (2007)

Question 43

What happened in the case of R v Heard (2007)?

Answer 43

The defendant was intoxicated and rubbed his penis up and down a police officers thigh. When he sobered up he said he couldn't remember anything, but when he is drunk he has a tendency to 'go silly and start stripping'. He was charged with sexual assault under s3 sexual offences act 2003.

Question 44

What was the outcome of R v Heard (2007)?

Answer 44

He was charged with sexual assault under s3 of the sexual offences act 2003. This requires, among other things, they the defendant touched the victim intentionally. The ruled the touching to be intentional, but even if it hadn't, he should not not have been so reckless in getting so drunk (Majewski rules) - remember as denning stated 'drunk intent is still intent'

Question 45

What type of intoxication do the Majewksi rules apply to?

Answer 45

Voluntary only

Question 46

If the defence of intoxication is available to someone who has committed a crime of specific intent whilst voluntarily drunk what is the outcome?

Answer 46

They will receive a fallback offence