INTOXICATION

What is Intoxication

Definition (AO1)

No express legal definition but seen as:

“Impairment of awareness, understanding or control resulting from use of a drug or any other substance”

How intox does D need to be for defence to apply

Rule (AO1)

D is intoxicated where he has consumed an ‘excessive’ amount of alcohol and/or drugs

-D’s level of intox is subjectively assessed (individual’s state of incapacity)

-D may be intoxicated by alcohol and/or drugs (medically prescribed or illegal)

How intox does D need to be for defence to apply

Case (AO3)

(R v Stubbs)

Result if Defence is successful

(AO1)

Since defence only applies to Specific intent crimes, if successful then conviction will be reduced to basic intent equivalent i.e.:

Murder to Manslaughter

OR

s.18 to s.20

(Burden of Proof lies with prosecution to establish MR)

Result if Defence is successful

Case (AO3)

(R v Pordage)

Intoxicated D with MR

Rule (AO1)

Where D was intoxicated but still capable of forming the necessary MR - and did so: D is liable

Intoxicated D with MR

Case (AO3)

(R v Sheehan & Moore) - Voluntary intoxicated

Ds were drunk, poured petrol on a homeless man and set him alight causing his death. Seen that Drunken intent is still intent

Ds were seen to not able to form MR and G of MSL not murder

(R v Kingston) - Involuntary intoxicated

D was attracted to boys, X drugged D who then performed sexual acts on V. D was guilty as he had MR beforehand

Voluntary Intoxication

Definition (AO1)

Where D consumes intoxicant, Knowing it to be intoxicant (self Induced)

D’s knowledge of nature / strength of intoxicant is irrelevant.

Voluntary Intoxication

Case (AO3)

(R v Allen)

D made home made wine and drank it without realising how strong it was. Then committed several criminal acts. Still seen as Voluntary intox

Majewski Rule

Rule (AO1)

It is a reckless course of conduct (getting vol. intoxicated) & recklessness is enough MR for any basic intent offences.

So Defence for Vol. Intox. only works for specific intent crimes!!!

Majewski Rule

Case (AO3)

(DPP v Majewski)

D consumed drugs and alcohol. Got involved in pub fight, head-butted landlord, punched a customer and kicked a police officer. D said he didn’t know what he was doing but was still convicted

Involuntary Intoxication

Definition (AO1)

Where D consumes intoxicants UNINTENTIONALLY

e.g through:

• Lacing

• Knowing consumption of medically prescribed drug

• Knowing consumption of sedative drug

D must be acquitted even for basic intent offences as long as D does not have MR beforehand

Involuntary Intoxication - MR beforehand

Case (AO3)

(R v Kingston)

D was attracted to boys, X drugged D who then performed sexual acts on V. D was guilty as he had MR beforehand

Involuntary Intoxication - No MR beforehand

Case (AO3)

(R v Hardie)

D took GF’s valium which was out of date and had an unusual reaction leading to unpredictable behaviour. D burnt down GF’s wardrobe and charged with arson. Conviction quashed since D was not reckless as drug was legal & soporific so D had no foresight

Distinguishing between Basic & Specific Intent

Rule (AO1)

1. No legal definition

2. No single Test too distinguish between BI & SI

3. Generally BI is any crime for which recklessness is sufficient in the MR also defined as any offence which isn’t SI

4. SI generally seen as an offence where intention is required

5. Policy Considerations

Specific intent offence (Intox defence may succeed)

(AO2)

• Murder

• s.18 GBH(wounding / GBH with intent)

• Theft

• Robbery

Basic intent offence (Intox defence will not succeed)

(AO2)

• Manslaughter

• s.20 GBH

• s.47 ABH

• s.39 Assault / Battery

Exception to Majewski Rule
Rule (AO1)

D may have a defence if the court accepts that even if D had been sober, that he would not have appreciated the risk

Exception to Majewski Rule
Case (AO3)

(R v Richardson & Irwin)

Intoxication Regarding Drugs
Rule (AO1)

Majewski Rule applies where D vol. intox. by dangerous drugs

But: No definition of dangerous drug.

Majewski Rule does not apply where D vol. intox. by sedative / soporific drugs

Intoxication Regarding Soporific Drugs
Case (AO3)

(R v Hardie)

D took GF’s valium which was out of date and had an unusual reaction leading to unpredictable behaviour. D burnt down GF’s wardrobe and charged with arson. Conviction quashed since D was not reckless as drug was legal & soporific so D had no foresight

D being reckless in taking sedative drug

Consider (AO2)

If D has knowledge of side effects from drugs or makes a ‘cocktail’ of alcohol / dangerous drugs / sedative drugs - Then may be Reckless.

Medically prescribed drugs

Rule (AO1)

Where D consumes medically prescribed drugs and is aware of potential side effects, than D may be Reckless

Medically prescribed drugs

Case (AO3)

(R v Bailey)

D's use of insulin as prescribed led to hypoglycemia, causing aggressive behavior and injury. The court found that D was not reckless as he followed medical guidance.

Vol. Intox. to give ‘Dutch Courage’

Rule (AO1)

Where D deliberately becomes intoxicated - in order to commit offence)

Intox defence does not apply to any offence

Vol. Intox. to give ‘Dutch Courage’

Case (AO3)

(A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher)

D planned on killing wife and so in order to carry it out, drank alcohol to gain ‘Dutch courage’

D was found G as had MR before getting drunk

Intoxicated Mistake

Rule (AO1)

Where D’s intoxication causes him to make a mistake:

If Vol. then apply principles of Voluntary intox.

If involuntary then D must be acquitted

Intox. Mistake in Regarding Self-Defence

Rule (AO1)

Necessity of force:

IVI - Where D honestly but mistakenly believes that it is necessary to use force in self-defence, D may rely on defence

VI - Where D’s mistake is due to voluntary intoxication, then D may not rely on defence

Intox. Mistake in Regarding Self-Defence - IVI

Case (AO3)

(R v Gladstone Williams)

Intox. Mistake in Regarding Self-Defence - VI

Case (AO3)

(R v O’Grady)

D was drunk with V. Both fell asleep then woke up and had an argument. D fell asleep and woke up again and found V dead from serious injuries. D was G

Exam Q involving Intoxication

Structure (AO2)

1. Offence AR

2. Offence MR

3. Defence

Intoxication exam question structure

(AO2)

1. Does D have MR

2. Is D VI or IVI

3. Basic or Specific Intent Crime

4. If basic then “would D have appreciated the risk if sober”