intoxication cases

r v Lipman

facts the D and his girlfriend took lsd and he shoved a bedsheet down her throat

LP could not form the mens rea of the offence so he was not guilty of murder as it requires specific intent but it fell back to manslaughter as it only requires basic intent to which intoxication is a defence

attorney general for northern Ireland v Gallagher

facts the D decided to kill his wife and drank whiskey to give himself Dutch courage so he would be able to kill her

LP If D forms mens rea before getting intoxicated, intoxication cannot be used as a defence. “Dutch courage” does not excuse liability.

sheehan and moore 1975

facts the two Ds in a drunken state poured petrol over a homeless man and set it alight causing his death

LP If D is so drunk that they cannot form the mens rea for a specific intent crime (like murder), they cannot be guilty of that offence.

But they can still be guilty of a basic intent crime like manslaughter

DPP v Majewski 1977

facts the D consumed large quantity’s of alcohol and drugs he then assaulted a landlord and the police he also damaged property, these are all basic intent offences

LP his reckless behaviour formed the necessary intent for the offences so he could not use intoxication as a defence establishes that intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes

r v kingston 1994

facts the defendant had paedophile tendancy’s and was drugged and filmed abusing a boy

LP guilty of the indecent assault as he had formed the mens rea for an offence before becoming intoxicated, involuntary intoxication could not be a defence as he formed MR

r v o’grady 1987

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

LP the defendant cannot rely on self defence for a mistake of the fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication

r v hatton

facts the defendant had drunk a lot of beer and found the victim dead he thought he acted in self defence but could not remember the events

LP the decision in o’grady applied to both specific and basic offences A drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self defence was not a defence

r v taj 2018

defendant drank heavily and later while in the grip of a post intoxication psychosis became convinced that a man was a terrorist

LP the phrase attribute to intoxication was not confined to cases in which alcohol or drugs were still present in the defendants system so the appeal failed

DPP v Beard (1920)

Principle: Voluntary intoxication can negate mens rea for specific intent offences.

Key point: If the defendant is too intoxicated to form intent, they may be found guilty of a lesser basic-intent offence instead.

Allen (1988)

Principle: Not knowing the strength of alcohol = still voluntary intoxication.

Key point: Misjudging how strong something is doesn't make it involuntary.

Hardie (1984)

Principle: Taking a drug that is not known to be dangerous (e.g., Valium) can count as involuntary intoxication.

Key point: If the drug has unexpected effects, D may not be responsible.