intoxication

What is intoxication ?

You are so intoxicated you can’t form a men’s rea

What can satisfy intoxication ?

Any intoxicant (r v coley)

What is initially a question of law for the trial judge ?

Whether D is intoxicated

But what happens if the defence don’t raise it ?

The judge doesn’t need to

What case shows this ?

R v Groack

What did lord denning say ?

A drunken intent is still an intent (r v Sheehan and more) if d forms a men’s rea while drunk is still and acceptable MR

What is voluntary intoxication ?

Has chosen to take an intoxicating substance

Knows that the effect of taking a prescribed drug will be to make them intoxicated

Occurs if a person chose to consume a dangerous drug known to cause unpredictability or aggressiveness

What happens if they commit a specific intent offence with no men’s rea available to them ?

In intoxicatopm a apsecific intent offence falls back to basic intent - r v lipman

What does R v Sheehan and Moore show ?

It is for the prosecution to prove that D had the intent

What does AG for N.I v Gallagher show ?

Where d had necessary MR despite their intoxicant state, then they are still guilty of an offence as a drunken intent is still intent

What is voluntary intoxication not a defence for ?

Basic intent offences

Why ?

Becoming intoxicated voluntary is considered a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary men’s rea

What case shows this ?

DPP v Majewski

What happens if involuntary intoxication and Dutch courage happen ?

Where d gets intocaited and doesn’t have a mr at the tine of the offence but formed it earlier and used intoxicants to become confident enough to offend there is no defence

What case shows this ?

Ag for NI v Gallagher

What is involuntary intoxication ?

D does not chose to become intoxicated or D has unexpected side effects to legitimate drugs as in both cases D is not reckless

What case shows this ?

R v Bailey

What can it be ?

A complete defence to basis and specie intent offences (Bratty)

Even if these cases a drunken intent is still and intent

R v Kingston

EVALUATION: does it preserve order in society ?

Yes- strict restriction on use of its as a defence ‘drunken intent as no intent’

NO - no offence can act as a deterrent

EVALUATION: enforce moral standards ?

Yes - involuntary intoxication provides a defence for both - reflects moral ideal that a person should not be punished for something they aren’t at fault for

No - younger people held to same standards

EVALUATION: punishment those at fault ?

Yes - those who have not involuntary been intoxicated can get a full defence they are not at fault so are not punished

EVALUATION: achieved justice ?

Yes - intoxication and Dutch courage, no acceptable, no defence available

No - young person who doesn’t know the potency of intoxicant will face the same consequences

EVALUATION: protects public from harm ?

Yes - acts as a deterrent, doesn’t act as an excuse for crime

No- no fall backs for some specific intent crimes - full defence available

EVALUATION: balance conflicting interest ?

No - in normal recklessness, there must be a specific risk and D must appreciate this risk whertherase intoxication D accepts the general risk of any subsequent offence in V intoxication as they were recklessness to get drink. This doesn’t correspond with legal principle

Yes - however this does respect public policy as we don’t want to encourage drinking to be used as a defence for criminal behaviour