Voluntary intoxication

Question 1

What is the general rule for voluntary intoxication

Answer 1

There is no defence of intoxication for voluntary intoxication

Question 2

Which case defines the limits of the defence and stated the general rule for intoxication

Answer 2

DPP V Beard

Question 3

The law is more lenient today why is this what is know considered?

Answer 3

The type of offence is considered; was it a SIC or a BIC? This will determine wether a defence will be allowed.

Question 4

Can there be a defence of intoxication if D voluntarily became intoxicated for SIC offences

Answer 4

YES- if D did not have the necessary MR for the offence as a result of his intoxication

Question 5

Case which shows the defence of intoxicate can be available for SIC offences when D voluntarily became intoxicated

Answer 5

Sheehan and Moore
D became so drunk, he poured petrol and set fire to a tramp- they were so intoxicated they didn’t form the intention for express or implied, therefore they could not be convicted of murder

Question 6

Examples of SIC offences

Answer 6

Murder
s18
theft
aggravated criminal damage

Question 7

When will the defence not be available for SIC offences

Answer 7

When D became intoxicated to get Dutch courage to commit the offence

Question 8

What is Dutch courage

Answer 8

Gaining confidence from an intoxicating substance, if D forms intention to commit a SIC then takes an intoxicating substance in order to commit the offence then there will be no defence available

Question 9

What phrase is used to describe drunken intention regarding Dutch courage

Answer 9

Drunken intent is still an intent

Question 10

Which case demonstrates the principle of Dutch Courage

Answer 10

AG for N. Ireland V Gallagher

Question 11

Case facts of AG for N. Ireland V Gallagher

Answer 11

D decided to kill his wife, he then consumed large amounts of whiskey before killing her. He could not use the defence of intoxication as he still had the intention to commit the murder despite being intoxicated, he knew what he was doing and had formed clear intention

Question 12

To be successful in the defence of intoxication when voluntarily intoxicated what must D do/not do

Answer 12

D must have not formed any intention for the offence before becoming intoxicated

Question 13

Following public principle, it would be absurd to allow people a general defence when voluntarily intoxicated such as Sheenan and Moore, so what has been put in place

Answer 13

the fall back principle, where the CPS will charge D with a lesser BIC offence

Question 14

Which case did Lord Denning sum up the fallback principle

Answer 14

Bratty V AG for N. Ireland

Question 15

What is the exception with the fallback principle

Answer 15

Theft because there is not a lesser offence D can be charged with like murder where D could be charged with manslaughter, OR s18 where D could be charged with s20

Question 16

Give an example of a case where the fallback principle was used

Answer 16

R V Lipman
D and V were drug addicts and took LSD. D believed V to be a snake, and hit her on the head then suffocated her by stuffing a sheet into her mouth.
Lipman claimed he had a bad trip and had no knowledge of real events and had no intention of harming V.
He could not be found guilty of murder as he had no intention to kill or cause GBH, He was found guilty of constructive manslaughter

Question 17

What is a BIC offence example

Answer 17

manslaughter 
rape
s20, s47 
assault 
battery

Question 18

For a BIC can voluntary intoxication ever be a defence

Answer 18

No as decided in Majewski

Question 19

case facts of DPP V Majewski

Answer 19

D drank heavily in the pub, became intoxicated, was thrown out and tried to get back in, in the process he injured the landlord and another customer.
Charged with ABH
HL said it was reckless conduct to get oneself blind drunk therefore recklessness was sufficient for MR

Question 20

Where was the approach used in Majewski criticised and why

Answer 20

S8 CJA which requires juries to decided if D was reckless and to consider all the evidence, but for BIC juries can not consider intoxication as evidence - as Majewski said intoxication was irrelevant evidence and the CJA only requires relevant evidence

Question 21

Which CA case took a less harsh approach to BIC offences

Answer 21

Richarson and Irwin

Question 22

What was decided in richardson and irwin

Answer 22

that jury should be directed to ignore the voluntary intoxication and treat D as having been aware of any risk which D would have been aware of if he hadn’t have been intoxicated (subjective )

Question 23

Following the ruling in Richardson and irwin would this allow everyone off

Answer 23

no, D would still probably be convicted because he would have foreseen the risk is he was sober

Question 24

The ruling from richardson and irwin is not current law but which LC recommended it

Answer 24

2009 report on intoxication