Intoxication

What is intoxication?

Where D claims he has drunk so much alcohol or taken so much drugs that he isn’t fully aware of what he is doing

Principles of Beard (1920)

• Intoxication only works if it makes D incapable of forming an MR

• D only has the burden of producing evidence that he had drunk or taken drugs

• The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish D was nevertheless capable of forming an MR.

What does D’s guilt also depend on?

Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary

If his intoxication is voluntary, what is then looked at?

Whether the offence was of specific or basic intention.

What is involuntary intoxication?

Where D is unaware he has taken an intoxicating substance, or, a prescription drug that has unforeseen circumstances.

Kingston (1994)

Facts - D, a notorious paedophile, drank a drugged coffee and then abused a young boy as part of an attempt to blackmail D by others.

Principle - Despite the intoxication, D knew what he was doing, he just could not stop himself.

Hardie (1985)

Facts - D was depressed and took his girlfriend’s valium. He then set fire to her wardrobe.

Principle - The normal affect of valium was to calm down a person, so he was not even reckless and the conviction was quashed. - Unforeseen effect

What does D have the burden of proof for if claiming involuntary intoxication?

D must prove that he was intoxicated involuntarily, not voluntarily.

Majewski (1977)

Facts - D drank excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs. He then got into a fight.

Principle - The conviction for ABH was upheld as he was reckless - basic intention. Voluntary intoxication is not a defence for basic intention - only specific.

What is voluntary intoxication?

Where D has chosen to take an intoxication substance whilst knowing of its effect.

Sheeham and Moore (1979)

Facts - Two very drunk D’s set fire to a tramp. They said they were too drunk to intend to kill or cause GBH.

Principle - Voluntary intoxication can bring a specific intention crime down to a lesser offence. They were not guilty of murder but were guilty of manslaughter.

AG for N. Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

Facts - D decided to kill his wife. He drank some of the whisky before he killed her.

Principle - The MR was formed before the killing - ‘Dutch Courage’ is no defence.

Hatton (2005)

Facts - D battered V to death with a sledgehammer. He claimed he remembered nothing except he thought V was trying to kill with samurai sword and so was claiming Self-Defence based on intoxicated state.

Principle - If D made an intoxicated mistaken belief then the defence of SD is bound to fail.

Heard (2007)

Facts - D was drunk. He undid his trousers and held up his penis to a female PO, rubbing it on her.

Principle - His drunken intention did not matter as it was a basic offense. The test was also only if a reasonable person would realise she was not consenting.