Intoxication

What is meant by intoxication?

It covers areas such as alcohol, drugs or other substances

It is an indicator of whether or not D has the necessary mens rea of a crime

What are the 2 types of intoxication which must be considered for intoxication to be used as a defence?

• Voluntary

• Involuntary

What are the 2 types of crimes which must be considered for intoxication to be used as a defence?

If the crime was of specific or basic intent

What is meant by basic intent, and give some examples of crimes of basic intent?

A crime which requires intention or recklessness to be committed

• s.20 OAPA

• s.47 OAPA

• Assault

• Battery

• Criminal damage

• Manslaughter

What is meant by specific intent, and give some examples of crimes of specific intent?

A crime which requires intention to be committed (recklessness not sufficient)

• Murder

• s.18 OAPA

• Theft

• Robbery

• Burglary

• Attempts

How does the defence of voluntary intoxication work on specific intent crimes?

Reduces offences to basic intent crime equivalent (e.g. murder to manslaughter) or it is a complete defence (e.g. theft, as it has no basic intent equivalent)

How does the defence of voluntary intoxication work on basic intent crimes?

The defence is not available (Getting drunk is seen as the reckless mens rea for the crime)

How does the case of DPP V Beard show voluntary intoxication for specific intent crime?

DPP V Beard

• Beard was charged with murder after he sexually assaulted and killed a girl while intoxicated.

• He argued he was too intoxicated to form the mens rea (intention) for murder.

• It was held that voluntary intoxication can be a defence only if it prevents D from forming the specific intent required for the offence.

Voluntary intoxication defence allowed for specific intent crimes

How does the defence of involuntary intoxication work on specific intent crimes?

It is available for all crimes unless mens rea was formed before the intoxication

How does the defence of involuntary intoxication work on basic intent crimes?

It is available for all crimes unless mens rea was formed before the intoxication

Intoxication must negate the mens rea

How does the case of Sheehan V Moore show this?

Sheehan V Moore

• Ds were very drunk when they threw petrol over a tramp and set fire to him

• They were too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or cause GBH- intoxication prevented them from forming mens rea

• D was guilty of manslaughter (basic intent crime)

Drunken intent is still intent.

How does the case of AG NI V Gallagher show this?

AG NI V Gallagher

• D decided to kill his wife, he bought a knife to do the killing and also a bottle of whiskey- he drank enough to give himself “dutch courage” before killing his wife

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

Drunken intent is still intent.

How does the case of R V Coley show this?

R V Coley

• D took cannabis and attacked his neighbours

• The defence failed, as D was not acting wholly involuntarily and he had induced his condition by voluntary intoxication

Drunken intent is still intent.

How does the case of Allen show this?

Allen

• D was charged with indecent assault following an evening drinking in a pub and drinking some wine given to him by a friend

• His claim that he did not realise the alcoholic strength of the wine that had been given to him did not make this involuntary intoxication

Voluntary intoxication can be a defence for specific intent crimes, but NOT for basic intent crimes.

How does the case of Majewski show this? (Majewski rules)

Majewski

• D consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs and then attacked the landlord of the pub, the police- All were basic intent crimes

• D claimed of having no memory of his actions due to be intoxicated, the court held that being drunk/ intoxicated formed the reckless mens rea of his crimes

• D was convicted

Distinction made between specific and basic intent crimes for voluntary intoxication

How does the case of Richardson and Irwin show voluntary intoxication is not a defence for basic intent crimes?

Richardson and Irwin

• Two university students were drunk and playfully dropped another student over a balcony, causing him serious injury.

• They claimed they didn't realise he would get hurt because they were drunk

• They were still convicted as the reckless intent to be intoxicated formed the mens rea of the basic intent crimes they committed

In terms of Past intoxication, If D is suffering from a mental disorder brought on by past voluntary intoxication, he can use this as a defence.

How does the case of R V Harris show this?

R V Harris

• Harris had been a heavy drinker, but at the time of the offence he had stopped drinking

• He set fire to his house and was charged with arson (a basic intent crime)

• His defence was that he was suffering alcohol-induced psychosis — a mental illness caused by past drinking, not current intoxication

• The court held that because he was not intoxicated at the time, this was not a case of voluntary intoxication → could fall under insanity

What situations are covered under the law of involuntary intoxication?

• If D does not know they are consuming an intoxicant e.g. spiked drink

• D consumes an intoxicating substance under medical advice or an intoxicant commonly known to be a sedative and it has an unexpected effect

If D voluntarily takes a non-dangerous drug, although not specifically prescribed to him, the taking may be treated as involuntary intoxication.

Which case shows this?

Hardie

• D took some Valium tablets because he was depressed and set fire to a wardrobe (basic intent crime)

• The tablets were his girlfriends

• D had not been reckless in the taking the drugs, and therefore the defence of involuntary intoxication was allowed

Which case created the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous drugs, showing that if D took a prescribed drug in a way which is likely to make him behave aggressively then they may be guilty of a basic intent crime?

Bailey

• Bailey was a diabetic who failed to eat after taking his insulin.

• As a result, he went into a hypoglycaemic state (low blood sugar), became aggressive, and hit someone over the head with an iron bar..

• If the D knows their actions might cause an unpredictable or aggressive state, and they do it anyway, that’s reckless.

• The court held that if the defendant's state was self-induced through recklessness (e.g., not eating after insulin), then he cannot rely on involuntary intoxication

Diabetes is not a dangerous drug, but intoxication rules apply the same

Which case established the test of whether D had the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence in terms of involuntary intoxication?

Kingston

• D had paedophile tendencies and he was drugged and filmed abusing a boy

• He was guilty of indecent assault as he had formed the mens rea for the offence before being intoxicated- involuntary intoxication defence did not apply

• “Drunk/ drugged intent is still an intent”

Where D did not have necessary mens rea, he will not be guilty of specific or basic intent crimes, this is because he had been involuntarily intoxicated (not reckless)

How does the case of Lipman show this?

Lipman

• D and his GF took an LSD trip and he stuffed a sheet down her throat

• D could not form the mens rea of the offence, so he was not guilty of murder (specific intent crime) so he was convicted of manslaughter (basic intent crime)

How does the case of R V O’Grady show that a drunk mistaken intent is not valid if it was from voluntary intoxication?

R V O’Grady

• A man killed his friend after a drinking session, claiming he did so in mistaken self-defence

• D could not rely on self-defence for a mistake of fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication

How does the case of R V Hatton show that a drunk mistaken intent is not valid if it was from voluntary intoxication? (O’Grady rules applied)

R V Hatton

• D had drunk a lot of beer and found V dead

• He thought he had acted in self-defence but could not remember the events

• Drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence was not a defence- O’Grady was applied

How does the case of Jaggard V Dickinson show the exception to the rule that a drunken mistaken belief caused by voluntary intoxication could not be sufficient? (criminal damage)

Jaggard V Dickinson

• D had been drinking heavily.

• She tried to get into what she thought was a friend’s house, and when she couldn’t, she broke a window to get in, believing her friend would have consented- it was the wrong house

• She was charged with criminal damage

• for criminal damage, a mistaken belief in consent (even if caused by intoxication) can be a defence, as long as it’s genuinely held.

s.76(5) Criminal Justice Act 2008 states that “reasonable force for purpose of self-defence does not enable D to rely on mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced”

What is meant by attributable?

• As a result of being intoxicated or drunk at the time of self-defence

• Immediately before or after drinking/ drug-taking, even if D was not drunk/ intoxicated at the time, the short term effects could have triggered something

How does the case of Taj show what is meant by “attributable to intoxication” in s.76(5) CJA 2008?

Taj

• D drank heavily and later, while in the grip of post-intoxication psychosis, became convinced that a man was a terrorist

• The phrase “attributable to intoxication” was not confined to cases where drugs/ alcohol were still present in D’s system

• D was convicted