Criminal Defence: Involuntary Intoxication

What types of crime can involuntary intoxication be used as a defence for?

Specific and basic intent crimes.

What type of defence is involuntary intoxication?

A full defence if proven. The D must not have had any mens rea.

Will the defence succeed if the D was reckless in taking the drug? (E.g. taking more than prescribed)?

No

Will the defence succeed if the D has MR?

NO - Any mens rea negates the defence

Kingston - D had paedophilic tendencies and was drugged and forced into a room with a minor who he assaulted. Since he had the MR to act upon his tendencies the defence failed.

Will the defence succeed if the D thought they were drinking a lower percentage drink?

NO - They were still reckless in drinking so they had mens rea.

Allen - D made homemade wine which had more alcohol than he thought. Defence of voluntary intoxication failed.

Involuntary Intoxication + Prescribed drugs

Prescribed drugs can count as involuntary intoxication as long as they were taken as directed.

Bailey - D was diabetic and was given insulin but didn’t eat afterwards. Since he didn’t follow the correct instructions the prescribed insulin didn’t allow him the defence as it was his actions that caused the intoxication.

Intoxication + Soporific drugs

Since soporific drugs generally have calming effects, an adverse reaction may lead to involuntary intoxication being allowed.

Hardie - D took valium but had an adverse reaction which caused him to commit arson. Defence succeeded as he was not reckless in taking the soporific drug.

Involuntary Intoxication + Laced drinks

If the D is completely unaware that they have taken an intoxicant, this may lead to the defence succeeding. However, the D must completely lack the mens rea for the crime they commit.

Kingston - D acted upon his paedophilic tendencies despite being laced so the defence failed.

Involuntary Intoxication + a mistake

An intoxicated mistake will only provide a defence to a specific intent crime as cosuming intoxicants is reckless and so can’t support basic intent crimes.

The D must also prove they did not have the MR for the specific intent crime.

Hatton - D hit gf with sledgehammer as he thought he had been attacked. Since he had the MR the defence failed.

Involuntary Intoxication + Self-defence

If a drunken mistake is about self-defence, s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that D will never have a defence to a basic or specific itnent crime.

Lipman - D took LSD and thought he was being attacked by snakes so smothered his gf. The defence was allowed as murder is a specific intent crime and he lacked MR.