Intoxication - denials of offences

What if the intoxication was involuntary (such as drinking spiking), what happens to D?

He is acquitted from the crime of basic and/or specific intent

What if the intoxication is self-induced and involves a drug known to cause aggression, what is the impact of this on specific intent offences?

Provides acquittal for specific intent provided D lacks mens rea

What if the intoxication is self-induced and involves a drug known to cause aggression, what is the impact of this on basic intent offences?

D will be liable for crimes of basic intent

What if the intoxication is self-induced and involves a drug which isn’t known to cause unpredictability or aggression, what is the impact of this on specific and basic intent offences?

Provides acquittal for all cases where D didn’t foresee the risk when taking the drug

R v Sheehan and Moore on intoxication not being a question of D’s capacity to form mens rea, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D charged with murder having set fire to V. D said he was so drunk that he had no idea or recollection of the event.

Outcome → Outlined intoxication can only be an excuse if they are so drunk that they are incapable of forming intent. This is rejected for murder as drunken intent is still intent

R v Campaneu on intoxication not being a question of D’s capacity to form mens rea, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D convicted of murder, he stabbed his wife and 7 month foetus. D consumed cocaine and argued the Sheehan direction was required.

Outcome → The direction request was rejected, since the threshold was too high to plead intoxication that they don’t have mens rea for the offence.

R v Aidad on intoxication not being a question of D’s capacity to form mens rea, what is the context and outcome?

Context → Murder of V after 5 day alcohol binge, D claimed to be so drunk as to be asleep during the killing

Outcome → Even if defendant doesn’t plead intoxication, the judge should direct the jury to the Sheehan principle.

R v Kingston on ‘a drunken intent is still an intent’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D was a paedophile, P drugged both D and a 15 year old boy. P knew of D’s paedophilic tendencies, P then recorded D as he assaulted the 15 year old boy. D was convicted and he appealed on the grounds that P made him do it and created a circumstance for him to succumb

Outcome → Drunken intent is still intent, he committed the actus reus and the necessary mens rea was sexually assaulting the 15 year old.

R v Allen on involuntary intoxication (did D have mens rea?), what is the context and outcome?

If you have an alcoholic beverage but it was spiked with drugs, then it is involuntary intoxication.

If you added MORE alcohol to an alcoholic drink, then it ISNT involuntary intoxication.

Knowingly taking a drug but which was of high potency (than expected) is not involuntary intoxication

Harris (2013) on intoxication

D who is sober but suffering from mental illness cannot rely on intoxication even if the mental illness arose from intoxication

DPP v Majewski on defining voluntary intoxication and the consequence?

D cannot be convicted of any crime requiring specific intent, but will instead be convicted of the corresponding crime of basic intent.

• If you’re charged with specific intent offence and the intoxication is voluntary, and you lack mens rea, you aren’t guilty

• If you’re charged with basic intent offence and the intoxication is voluntary, and you lack mens rea, you are guilty (your drinking as mens rea for crime)

How does Lord Diplock in Caldwell outline basic and specific intent crimes for voluntary intoxication?

ask whether the predominant mens rea of the offence can be satisfied by recklessness (or negligence or liability is strict). If so it is a crime of basic intent.

what are specific intent and basic intent offences (from the module)?

Specific Intent -

• Murder

• S18 OAPA - GBH

• Theft

• S1(2) Criminal Damage as to life endangerment

Basic Intent -

• SOA offence (rape, sexual assault, assault by penetration and making another person to have sexual intercourse)

• Battery

• Assault

• S20 OAPA - GBH

• ABH

• Simple criminal damage - S1

R v Lipman on dangerous and non-dangerous drugs in relation to voluntary intoxication, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D had taken LSD with his girlfriend, then strangled her after seeing visions of being attacked by snakes.

Outcome → Drugs such as LSD will be treated the same as alcohol for intoxication rules

R v Hardie on dangerous and non-dangerous drugs in relation to voluntary intoxication, what is the context and outcome?

Outcome → Valium treated as a drug different from alcohol, since there was no evidence that taking valium would make someone aggressive or incapable of appreciating risk to others