Intoxication case reference

R v Kingston

is a significant English criminal law case addressing involuntary intoxication as a defense to criminal charges. Barry Kingston was involuntarily drugged by an associate who sought to exploit his known paedophilic tendencies. While under the influence, Kingston was encouraged to engage in sexual acts with a 15-year-old boy, an event orchestrated by his associate. He was subsequently charged and convicted of indecent assault, arguing that he would not have committed the act had he not been drugged without his knowledge. The central legal issue was whether involuntary intoxication could negate the necessary criminal intent, or "mens rea." The Court of Appeal held that, despite his intoxication, Kingston still possessed the intent to commit the act. The drugs lowered his inhibitions but did not eliminate his awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions. Since Kingston admitted he would not have acted this way if sober, the court concluded he understood his conduct was improper, and his conviction was upheld. This case established that involuntary intoxication is not a defense if the defendant still formed the intent to commit the crime, reinforcing the principle that a lack of self-induced intoxication does not excuse criminal behavior when intent is present.

R v Hardie

D and his girlfriend had an argument. D was involuntarily intoxicated after taking Valium that was out of date as he was not aware it was out of date or it’s affect he was involuntarily intoxicated. He then set fire to his girlfriends closet and was arrested for arson. Involuntary intoxication worked as a defence here.

R v Sheehan and Moore

– D1 had one pound stolen from him by a homeless mane. Ds then go together and got drunk then decided to buy petrol, find the man, hold him down and burn him alive. Ds tried to use intoxication as a defence but using the phrase ‘Drunk intent is still intent’ the court decided not to let them use this as a defence as the prosecution proved they formed direct intent to kill him by buying petrol and tracking him down. Ruled that drunken intent is still an intent.

R v Heard

– D was drunk at his home and had cut himself and was taken to A and E. He then began swearing and sining and was taken outside by police. He then punched an officer pulled out his penis and rubbed it on the officer. He claimed when he got drunk or ill he was prone to getting silly and stripping. Intoxication could not be used as it was a basic intent crime

R v Lipman

– D and his girlfriend had taken LSD. In his trip he was being attacked by snakes. In reality he was stuffing a bedsheet down her throat. He was charged with murder and manslaughter as a back up charge. As the MR for murder couldn’t be found he was instead found guilty of manslaughter.

DPP v Majewski

– D went on a bender. D and his friend were in a pub causing a ruckus when the landlord tried to kick them out. He then goes berserk and attacks random people breaks back into the pub attacks people and destroys parts of the pub. He attacks arresting officers and then destroys a part of the cell. He was charged with multiple basic intent crimes and pleaded he could not remember any of it. The Majewski rule was created that intoxication on a basic intent crime is never a defence.

A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

– D was imprisoned for violence against his wife and blamed her for this. Upon release he bought a knife and some whiskey to give himself the ‘Dutch courage’ to murder her as he wanted to. This clearly showed he had the MR for the murder he later committed.

R v Allen

– D drank some of his friends home made wine which was way stronger than he though it would be. He the committed a violent sexual offence. This still applies as voluntary intoxication as he chose to drink the wine even if it was stronger than he believed it to be.

R v O’Grady

D and V got very drunk together and fell asleep at D’s flat. D woke up to V hitting him so he grabbed a glass ash tray hit him, went and made the both a pork chop and fell asleep again. When he awoke he found V with 20 head wounds, severe bruising to the brain and a fractured spine. He had made a mistake while intoxicated that could not be relied upon for the defence of self defence so D was liable