WS 3 Intoxication Flashcards
R v Kingston [1994]
Intoxication may work as a defence only if it causes the D to lack that necessary MR.
Facts of R v Kingston
Facts: D given coffee which unbeknownst to him had been spiked with drugs. He then went on to sexually assault a young boy. D had known paedophile tendencies but claimed he would not have done it had he not been under influence of drugs. HoL held absence of moral fault by Kingston was not in itself sufficient to negative the necessary mental element of the offence. Prosecution showed he had the MR
What must be decided?
1) Was it voluntary or involuntary intoxication?
2) Crime of specific or basic intent?
When is voluntary intoxication a defence?
ONLY a defence to crimes of SPECIFIC intent (DPP v Majewski – following Beard – ones where mens rea requires intention and nothing less)
What if D was drinking but underestimated the effect?
This is still voluntary - R v Allen
Are the crimes in ss.1,2,3,9,13 BASIC or SPECIFIC intent?
o R v Heard: (Facts: CA: D convicted of s.3 sexual assault. Argued he was not guilty because he was so drunk that he had been incapable of forming the requisite mens rea of intentional touching. Vol Intox so had to show this was a SPECIFIC INTENT crime (and would appear so from statute). However, CA said ss.1, 2, 3, 9, 13 treated as BASIC intent, and that SPECIFIC INTENT meant where there was an ulterior motive, i.e. where the mens rea went beyond actus reus. Omerod said this would cause confusion in the courts
Exception to DPP v Majewski?
o Exception: If the D makes a mistake relating to lawful excuse for criminal damage under s.5(2)(a) of the CDA 1971, he can rely on that defence even if his mistake resulted from his voluntary intox. (Jaggard v Dickinson)
What if the defence of voluntary intoxication is successful against a charge of specific intent crime (e.g. murder)?
Even if prosecution fails to show that he had the mens rea for murder because of his intoxication, he would still be liable for manslaughter (a crime of basic intent - R v Lipman 1970)
Where is involuntary intoxication a defence?
To any crime, if he did not have the mens rea for it.
If someone takes a non-dangerous drug which had unusual side effects, is this vol or invol intox?
- An administered (non-dangerous) drug produces adverse side-effects (R v Hardie [1984] – Facts: D’s girlfriend left him and as he was upset he took some of his friend’s valium tablets. Later he started a fire and was charged with arson, but he claimed that he did not know what he was doing. CA allowed his appeal on basis his intoxication was involuntary); Thus, taking a drug is invol intox where:
- Non-dangerous drug
- D’s reaction unpredictable
Is Dutch courage a defence?
o Dutch courage – D cannot rely on defence of voluntary intoxication if he had the MR of the crime before he started to drink (AG v Gallagher [1963])
Facts of Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]
D decided to kill his wife and drank most of a bottle of whiskey to give himself ‘Dutch courage’. It was decided that a D could not rely on voluntary intox if he had the MR for the crime before he started to drink
What if the D’s mistaken belief in need for self-defence is brought about by intoxication? Is this a defence?
- R v O’Grady – where a D was mistaken in using force due to voluntary intoxication then the defence of self-defence will fail
- Confirmed by R v Hatton – where an intoxicated person whose mistaken belief was induced by intoxicated matter does not have a defence to charge of murder or manslaughter
Facts in O’Grady
Facts: D and V both drank a lot of alcohol before returning to O’Grady’s flat. During the night a fight ensued and when O’Grady got up he found C dead. O’Grady said he had believed he needed to defend himself. O’Grady could raise issue of self-defence but as long as his reaction did not exceed that of a sober person. CA dismissed appeal. Lord Lane said obiter that id di not matter whether the offence was one of specific or basic intent.
