Intoxication

Introduction

• Can be used as a defence if the D lacks the necessary MR for offence due to the intoxication

• Availability depends if voluntary or involuntary & if of basic intent crime or specific intent crime

Specific intent crimes

• Crimes that require an intention for a particular result

• For involuntary & voluntary offences prosecution must prove D had necessary MR

• Can use defence if they fail to have MR but if they have MR then can’t use the defence as a drunken intent is still intention 

• For voluntary offences where defence is applicable offence may be dropped to equivalent basic intent crime eg murder to manslaughter

R v Sheehan & Moore

• Ds were drunk & set men on fire

• Didn’t have the necessary MR so could use defence but murder charge was dropped to UAM

R v Lipman

• D killed his gf when he was on drugs as he thought snakes were coming out of her mouth

• Didn’t have the MR so could use defence

A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

• D got drunk to give him the confidence to kill his wife & killed her

• Had the intent so couldn’t use defence

Basic intent crimes

• Crimes that don’t require intention for a particular result, just an intention to do the act eg assault, battery, manslaughter

• Voluntary intoxication taken as a sign of recklessness & won’t be able to use defence

• Involuntary intoxication may be able to use defence if D didn’t have MR as not a sign of recklessness  

DPP v Majewski

• D was drunk & high & assaulted landlord in the pub

• Held voluntary intoxication was a sign of recklessness so couldn’t use defence

R v Kingston

Drunken intent is still an intent

R v Hardie

• D had a strange reaction to Valium - didn’t have MR so could use defence (involuntary intoxication)

R v Allen

A person taking drugs/drinking can’t rely on the fact that they’re more powerful than expected - couldn’t use defence

Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008

s.76 - D cannot rely on any mistaken belief due to intoxication