Intoxication

What to consider for intoxication?

• Whether intoxication was voluntary or involuntary;

• Whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent.

Voluntary intoxication

• Chosen to take an intoxication substance;

• Knows the effect of a prescribed drug will make them intoxicated

Taking a “non dangerous drug” might be considered intoxication considering the volume and knowledge of likely effects.

• R v Coley

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences

• If defendant is voluntarily intoxicated, this could mean they did not form the mens rea.

• If they commit a specific intent offence with no mens rea, defence is available. With mens rea, not available.

• Where there is an alternate basic intent offence, the defendant may be charged with the alternate - R v Lipman/ R v Sheehan and Moore

Dutch courage

• Where a defendant had the necessary mens rea despite their intoxication state, they’re still guilty of an offence - Gallagher

Voluntary innovation and basic intent offences

• Where a defendant is charged with a basic intent offence, then voluntary intoxication is not a defence as being intoxicated is to assume immediate recklessness - Majewski.

Involuntary intoxication

• Covers situations where defendant didn’t know they were taking an intoxicated substance.

• If defendant was intoxicated through no fault of their own, they’re allowed to argue they did not form the mens rea regardless of specific or basic intent.

• R v Kingston

Test for both specific and basic intent offences

• Q) Did defendant have necessary mens rea at time of committing the offence

• Yes: if the defendant had necessary mens rea, no defence.

• No: if they were so intoxicated that they could not form the necessary mens rea, they get total acquittal.

Situations which are regarded as involuntary intoxication

• Where prescribed drugs cause unexpected side effects - R v Bailey

• Where drugs are soporific or sedative, as opposed to inhibition-lowering or mind-expanding - R v Hardie

• Where defendant did not know of intoxication, like spiking - R v Kingston.