intoxication

r v Coley

this is definition of vol intox

• D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance

• knows that the effect if taking a prescribed drug will be to make them intoxicated

facts

• D was a regular user of cannabis and one evening watched a violent video game later that night he attacked his neighbour and there wife when arrested he was calling for his mother and threating suicide

• claimed he blacked out and does not remember the events evidence was that he could’ve had a psychotic episode induced by the weed and he may have been pretending to be the video game character

• he was convicted of attempted murder as his state of mind was caused by voluntary intoxication and therefore it could not be insanity

r v Sheeran and Moore

the true test for specific intent is whether because of intoxication the defendant did not form the intent irrespective of whether they were incapable of doing so.

facts

• the Ds in a drunken state poured petrol over a homeless man and set him on fire causing his death. it was decided that the relevant question was not whether the Ds were capable of forming the mens it was whether they had infact formed the mens rea - drunken intent is still intent

• it is for the prosecution to prove that there is intent

• in this case they were unable to so the defendants were convicted of unlawful act manslaughter

case for specific intent crimes

r v Lipman

you can be charged with both specific and basic intent crime and it will be left to the jury to see if you had the mens rea fot the specific intent crime so the prosecution will get a conviction for a lesser crime if mens rea cannot be found

facts

• the defendant and his girlfriend took LSD while they were tripping the D shoved a sheet down her throat as he believed he was fighting a snake and going to the centre of earth he was charged with murder and unlawful at manslaughter

• he was acquitted of murder as he was unable to form the mens rea of the offence. however he was convicted of manslaughter as that is basic intent offence to which voluntary intox is no defence

attorney general for northern Ireland v Gallagher

where the D has the necessary mens rea despite their intoxicated state, then they are still guilty of an offence as a drunken intent is still intent this is shown by this case

facts

• the D decided to kill his wife he bought a knife and a bottle of whiskey to give himself Dutch courage before killing his wife

• his conviction for murder was upheld as he had formed the intent to kill before he became intoxicated

• this case shows the defendants prior fault to being punished in other words he made up his mind to kill before allegedly becoming so drunk that he killed while having no mens rea

DPP v Majewski

where the offence charged is of basic intent then vol intox is not a defence this is because becoming intoxicated voluntarily is considered a reckless course of conduct and reckless enough to constitute mens rea this can be seen in this case

facts

• the defendant consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs he then attacked the landlord of the pub where he was drinking he also attacked the police who came to arrest him all the offences he was charged with were basic intent offences

• the D claimed he had no memory of what he had done due to the drink and the drugs he consumed the court held that becoming intoxicated by drink and or drugs was a reckless course of conduct and as reckless was enough for the mens rea in the offence of which he was charged he could not use the defence of intox

r v allen

if the D does not realise the strength of the intoxicant for example where street drugs have been cut with other substances there could still be a defence

facts

• the d drank some home made wine which had a greater effect on him than expected while under the influence of this wine he committed sexual assaults he claimed he was drunk and did not know what he was doing and that he had not voluntarily put himself in that position as the wine was stronger than he realised

• it was decided that intoxication was still voluntary even though he did not realise the strength of it sexual assualt is a crime of basic intent and therefore the D could not rely on his intoxicated state to negate mens rea

involuntary intoxication

covers situations where the defendant did not know they were taking an intoxicating substance this may be where a drink was been laced or spiked or where a prescribed drug has the unexpected effect of making the defendant intoxicated and the D does not realise the effect .

r v Kingston

if the defendant was intoxicated through no fault of their own they are allowed to argue they did not form the mens rea whether the intent is specific or basic intent if the prosecution can prove they did have mens rea they will be guilty of the offence even if they would not have committed it without being involuntarily intoxicated

facts

the D was invited to a house where his drink was drugged by a man who wanted to blackmail him he was then shown a 15 yr old boy who was drugged and unconscious and invited to abuse him the D who had paedophile tendency’s did so and was photographed by the blackmailer he was convicted of indecent assualt if the defendant had formed the mens rea for an offence before becoming intoxicated then involuntary intox could not be a defence

r v o’grady

if the D is mistaken about a key fact because they are intoxicated it depends on the mistake to if they get a defence

• specific intent where the mistake is about something where they did not have the necessary mens rea for the offence

• where the offence is one of basic intent the D has no defence

if the mistake is about another aspect such as force needed in self defence the D will not have a defence this applies to basic and specific intent

facts

• after the D and the V who were friends had been drinking heavily they fell asleep the D awoke to the V hitting him he picked up an ash tray and hit the V and went back to sleep the next morning he found his friend dead

• on a charge of manslaughter the court aid a D is not entitled to rely so far as self defence is concerned upon a mistake of the fact which has been induced by vol intox

r v hatton

the defendant had drunk over 20 pints of beer he and the victim went back to the defendants flat in the morning he claimed he found the victim dead from injuries caused by a sledgehammer. He said he could not really remember what happened from the night before but thought the victim had hit hime with a five foot long stick he had defended himself he was convicted of murder

the court held that the decision in o’grady was not limited to basic intent offences but also implied to specific intent offences a drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self defence was not a defence

r v taj

reasonable force can be used for the purposes of self defence defence of another or prevention of a crime however s76(5) says that

does not enable the D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intox that was voluntarily induced the words attributable to intox are broad enough to encompass a mistaken state of mind

• as a result of being drunk or intoxicated at the time

• immediately or after earlier drinking or drug taking so that even though the defendant was not drunk or intox at the time the short term effects could have triggered subsequent episodes or for example paranoia this was seen in

facts

• D began abusing drugs and alcohol as a child, which eventually brought on psychosis that made him hear voices and become aggressive and paranoid this psychosis would linger after the intoxication wore off

• the D drank heavily later while in the grip of post intox psychosis he became convinced a Muslim man was a terrorist trying to detonate a bomb he attacked and nearly killed him but pleaded sled defence to the charge of attempted murder arguing he was entitled to the benefit of his honest albeit unreasonable beliefs about the circumstances that existed at the time of attack