intoxication flashcards

R v Lipman

The defendant and his girlfriend took LSD before falling asleep. He awoke having hallucinations and thinking he was at the centre of the earth being attacked by snakes, he attacked back. He killed his girlfriend as he believed she was a snake. On the evidence - not murder - no specific intent. His conviction for manslaughter was upheld - this was the basic intent offence as he had recklessly taken the LSD.

R v O’Grady 1987

Two friends fell asleep after drinking heavily. O’Grady claimed to wake up to his friend hitting him, so he took a heavy ashtray and hit V with it and fell asleep. He awoke the next morning to find his friend dead - he was charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter. Getting drunk was a reckless course of conduct (a drunken mistake about the amount of force required was not permissible for the defence of self-defence).

R v Hatton

The defendant drank over 20 pints of ever and he and other man went back to his flat. In the morning, he found the friend dead from injuries amused by blows from a sledgehammer. He couldn’t remember what had happened but thought the other man had attacked with a stick. He was convicted of murder - the CoA said that his mistake about the amount of forced needed to a specific intent offence like murder (O’Grady applied).

R v Taj

Taj had abused drugs and alcohol for several years. Hyde developed a psychosis condition that made him aggressive and paranoid. This would linger for a while even after the intoxication wore off. During one of these episodes, he attacked a man he thought was a terrorist trying to detonate a bomb. His plea of self defence to a charge of attempted murder included a claim that he had an honest, albeit unreasonable belief about the situation. His appeal was dismissed - intoxication still relevant.

DPP v Majewski 1977

Majewski consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs and attacked the pub landlord and police officers trying to arrest him. All the offences were basic intent offences. He claimed to have no memory and that he was not at fault as there was no mens rea. The court rejected this - his conduct in becoming intoxicated was reckless and that was enough for the offences he was charged with.

R v Harris 2013

past intoxication - the defendant had been a very heavy drinker and once he stopped, he suffered from a metal disorder. He set his house on fire after hearing voices telling him to do so. The CoA quashed his conviction for ‘arson endangering life’ (specific intent) on the basis that in the condition he was in, he didn’t know that he was endangering life. The prosecution had wanted ton extend the principle from majestic saying that the illness was his own fault so he should be treated as drunkenness. Not accepted by CoA.

R v Allen 1988

Defendant drank home made wine that was much strong wet than he had expected. Whilst under the influence he committed sexual assaults. He claimed that the strength of the wine had placed him in a state that what he had done was not voluntary. Held - intoxication was still voluntary (apply Majewski). Sexual assaults is a basic intent offences and voluntary intoxication was sufficient - no negation of mens real.

R v Kingston 1994

The defendant Had his coffee drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him. He was then shown a 15 year old nob and invited to abuse him which he did. The blackmailer took photographs which he intended to use. The cinvocation for indecent assault was upheld - the defendant had already formed the mens rea for the offence so the involuntary intoxication was not a defence. The intoxication lowered his resistance to committing the offence and even if he would not have otherwise committed the offence and even if he would have not otherwise committed the offence, this was not a defence.

R v Hardie 1984

D was depressed after his gf had ended their relationship. She gave him some of her own Valium and told him to take some to calm himself down. Whilst on the Valium he set fire to a wardrobe in the flat but claimed he didn’t know what he was doing. The trial judge directed the jury to ignore the effects of the Valium and he was convicted of arson. The CoA quashed the conviction - the defendant thought the Valium would calm him down, which is the normal effect, but it had the opposite effect. He had not been reckless so the defence ought to to be availed to him. Involuntary intoxication.

Points to cover in an essay

• need for a restrictive defence

• The problem of no mens rea raises issues for finding liability for offences

• Problem of no ‘fall back’ offence as in property offences

• Decisions are often based on policy - very significant as so many offences are committed by intoxicated people.

• Arbitrary and inconsistent decisions on facts - some allow intoxication, others don’t.

• Not always a clear distinction that can be made easily - voluntary and involuntary - especially with taking legal medication.

• Intoxicated mistake follows in line with the specific/basic intent distinction so is concerned with public policy - mistake about the level of force is not allowed.

• The law commission has criticised terms ‘basic’ and ‘specific intent’ as ‘confusing, ‘misleading’ and ‘should be abandoned’. It points out that there is no single test for deciding if an offence is one of basic or specific intent. Many basic intent offences can be committed with intention as well as recklessness.

• Comments also on the problem of establishing voluntary/involuntary distinction - drink spiking and other problems such as medications.

• Should there be a distinction in how we treat legal medication and illegal drugs?