Voluntary intoxication Flashcards
What is the general rule for voluntary intoxication
There is no defence of intoxication for voluntary intoxication
Which case defines the limits of the defence and stated the general rule for intoxication
DPP V Beard
The law is more lenient today why is this what is know considered?
The type of offence is considered; was it a SIC or a BIC? This will determine wether a defence will be allowed.
Can there be a defence of intoxication if D voluntarily became intoxicated for SIC offences
YES- if D did not have the necessary MR for the offence as a result of his intoxication
Case which shows the defence of intoxicate can be available for SIC offences when D voluntarily became intoxicated
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
Examples of SIC offences
Murder
s18
theft
aggravated criminal damage
When will the defence not be available for SIC offences
When D became intoxicated to get Dutch courage to commit the offence
What is Dutch courage
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
What phrase is used to describe drunken intention regarding Dutch courage
Drunken intent is still an intent
Which case demonstrates the principle of Dutch Courage
AG for N. Ireland V Gallagher
Case facts of AG for N. Ireland V Gallagher
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
To be successful in the defence of intoxication when voluntarily intoxicated what must D do/not do
D must have not formed any intention for the offence before becoming intoxicated
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
the fall back principle, where the CPS will charge D with a lesser BIC offence
Which case did Lord Denning sum up the fallback principle
Bratty V AG for N. Ireland
What is the exception with the fallback principle
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
Give an example of a case where the fallback principle was used
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
What is a BIC offence example
manslaughter rape s20, s47 assault battery
For a BIC can voluntary intoxication ever be a defence
No as decided in Majewski
case facts of DPP V Majewski
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
Where was the approach used in Majewski criticised and why
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
Which CA case took a less harsh approach to BIC offences
Richarson and Irwin
What was decided in richardson and irwin
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 )
Following the ruling in Richardson and irwin would this allow everyone off
no, D would still probably be convicted because he would have foreseen the risk is he was sober
The ruling from richardson and irwin is not current law but which LC recommended it
2009 report on intoxication
