Intoxication AO1

What is the definition of the defence?

D is claiming that they’re so intoxicated through excessive drinking or drugs, that they’re unable to forms the Mens Rea (intent) of the crime.

Voluntary intoxication

D chooses to become intoxicated

Involuntary intoxication

D is not at fault for becoming intoxicated.

Specific Intent Crimes

The Mens Rea has to be intention (GBH S18)

Basic Intent Crimes

The Mens Rea can be recklessness (GBH S20)

What did Majewski say about voluntary intoxication for basic intent crimes?

There is never a defence for voluntary intoxication for basic intent crimes as D is reckless by becoming intoxicated.

Specific intent crimes without the Mens Rea?

If D commits a specific intent crime without the Mens Rea, it is reduced the the basic intent equivalent (eg S18 → S20).

Intoxication and theft?

Theft has no lesser defence, therefore is acquitted.

‘Dutch Courage’

Intoxication is NOT a defence for Dutch Courage (Gallagher)

Intoxicated Mistake

Intoxication is not a defence for if D makes an intoxicated mistake (Lipman) UNLESS it is criminal damage (Jaggard).

When may D have a full defence?

If the intoxication is involuntary or has the opposite effect (Hardie-a calming drug made D aggressive).

What did Kingston say about the Mens Rea?

Kingston: ‘a drugged intent is still intent.’

If D has the Mens Rea, it is NOT involuntary (even if they have been spiked).