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

Voluntary intoxication

• Specific intent crimes (MR intention eg murder, theft & s18 GBH)

• Courts must prove that D has necessary MR for offence

• If D is so intoxicated that they haven’t formed MR then not guilty & can use offence

• If formed MR despite being drunk then can’t use defence as a druken intent is still intent

• Basic intent crimes (MR recklessness eg assault, battery & s20 GBH)

• Voluntary intoxication seen as a sign of recklessness so can’t use defense (R v Majewski)

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

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

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

Involuntary intoxication

• Can be used for specific & basic intent crimes but must prove MR

• If MR, then can’t use defence as a drunken intent is still intent (R v Kingston)

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)