Voluntary Intoxication Flashcards
Is the defence of intoxication available for Dutch courage?
No
What is voluntary intoxication?
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
What type of crime needs to have been committed for the defence of intoxication to be available to you?
A specific intent crime
How has the law on voluntary intoxication changed?
It is now comparatively lenient as at one point it was not regarded as a defence at all
Who first considered voluntary intoxication, specific intent crimes and the defence of intoxication?
Lord Birkenhead in DPP v Beard (1920)
What did Lord Birkenhead say in DPP v Beard (1920)?
‘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’
What is the case of DPP v Beard (1920) relevant to?
Lord Birkenhead recognising that the defence could be available to specific intent crimes if one is involuntarily intoxicated
What case happened in 1920?
DPP v Beard
In what year was the case of DPP v Beard?
1920
If you are voluntarily intoxicated, when is the defence available to you?
If it is a specific intent crime and the defendant does not have the required mens rea for the crime
What case happened in 1975?
R v Sheehan
In what year was the case of R v Sheehan?
1975
What is the case of R v Sheehan (1975) relevant to?
‘A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’
In what case was the jury directed that ‘a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’?
R v Sheehan (1975)
What was established in the case of R v Sheehan (1975)?
‘A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’
In relation to R v Sheehan (1975), explain ‘drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’…
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?’
What is the case of Bratty (1963) relevant to?
Denning clarifying the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes
In what year was the case of R v Bratty?
1963
What case took place in 1963?
R v Bratty
In what case did Lord Denning help distinguish between basic and specific intent crimes?
R v Bratty (1963)
What did Lord Denning say in the case of R v Bratty (1963)?
‘Specific intent crimes can only be committed intentionally, basic intent crimes can be committed recklessly’
What is the leading case on involuntary intoxication and specific intent?
R v Lipman (1970)
What case happened in 1970?
R v Lipman
In what year did the case of R v Lipman take place?
1970
What is the case of R v Lipman (1970) relevant to?
Voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes
What happened in the case of R v Lipman (1970)?
Lipman and his girlfriend took LSD, he suffocated his girlfriend believing she was a snake attacking him as a result of hallucinations.
What was the outcome of R v Lipman (1970)?
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.
Is the defence of intoxication available to those who are voluntarily intoxicated who have committed crimes of basic intent?
No
What cases are relevant to voluntary intoxication and basic intent?
DPP v Majewski (1977)
R v Heard (2007)
What case happened in 1977?
DPP v Majewski
In what year did the case of DPP v Majewski happen?
1977
What is the case of DPP v Majewski relevant to?
The Majewski rules being created
What was the outcome of DPP v Majewski (1977)?
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.
What is 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.
What are examples of crimes of specific intent?
Murder
Wounding with intent
Causing GBH with intent
Theft, robbery and burglary attempts
What is the mens rea for specific intent crimes?
Intention
What are examples of crimes of basic intent?
Involuntary manslaughter Rape Wounding (s20) Inflicting GBH (s20) ABH Assault and battery Criminal damage
What is the mens rea for crimes of basic intent?
Primarily recklessness but it can be intention (but ignore the intention part really as that makes it unclear)
What is the case of R v Heard (2007) relevant to?
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
What case happened in 2007?
R v Heard
In what year was the case of R v Heard?
2007
What case is an example of the Majewski principle at use?
R v Heard (2007)
What happened in the case of R v Heard (2007)?
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.
What was the outcome of R v Heard (2007)?
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’
What type of intoxication do the Majewksi rules apply to?
Voluntary only
If the defence of intoxication is available to someone who has committed a crime of specific intent whilst voluntarily drunk what is the outcome?
They will receive a fallback offence
