Intoxication and Insanity and Automatism

Voluntary intoxication

Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant of his own free will decides to take an intoxicating substance. Whether the defence is available depends on the crime being one of specific or basic intent.

The general rule is that voluntary intoxication is only available for crimes of specific intent such as murder and s.18 and not for crimes of basic intent such as assault (DPP v Majewski)

[if a defendant is voluntary intoxicated and commits a specific intent crime, the defence of intoxication may be available as it may have prevented the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea (R v Lipman).

If D can still form the mens rea of the crime D is guilty, even if intoxication impaired D’s ability in some way, “Drunken intent is still intent” (R v Kingston)

[If D had formed the mens rea before becoming intoxicated, he has no defence of intoxication as seen in A-G v Gallagher where the defendant became intoxicated to gain ‘dutch courage’ before committing the crime.

Involuntary intoxication

Involuntary intoxication may be a defence to both basic and specific intent crimes, where no mens rea was formed. Involuntary intoxication is where the defendant does not know they are taking alcohol or intoxicating drugs, e.g their drink has been spiked, a person takes illegal drugs thinking its aspirin or taking a prescribed drug that has an undesired effect (R v Hardie)

It must be shown the effect of the involuntary intoxication was such that the defendant, as a result of the intoxicating substance, was unable to form the necessary mens rea for the offence (R v Kingston).

[Where the defendant takes a non-dangerous drug or a prescription drug, this may be treated as involuntary intoxication if the defendant suffers from an uncommon reaction (R v Hardie)

Insanity - introduction

Defendant may have a defence of insanity under the rules in M’Naghten.

Insanity - defect of reason

Firstly, it must be proved the defendant suffered from a defect of reason which means that D’s powers of reasoning must be impaired. [Being temporarily confused or absent-minded will not qualify (Clarke)]

Insanity - caused by a disease of the mind

Next, it must be proved that the defect of reason was caused by a disease of the mind. [This could be as a result of a mental or physical condition (an internal factor) affecting D’s ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding (Kemp).

Insanity - Defendant did not nature/quality

Lastly, it must be proved that D does not know the nature and quality of his act or, if he/she does know it, does not know that it is legally wrong. [In Windle, D saying ‘I suppose I’ll hang for this’ showed he did understand that what he had done was legally wrong.]

[In R v Oye, D had a defect of reason caused by a psychotic episode when he committed the offence, he did not know the nature and quality of his act.]

Automatism Introduction

Defendant may have the defence of automatism.

Automatism - defendant is not in control

Firstly, it must be proved that defendant is not in control and therefore there is an involuntary act. In Bratty Lord Denning defined automatism as: ‘an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind’

Automatism - the loss of control was due to an external factor

Next, it must be proved that the loss of control was due to an external factor. In Quick the external factor was the taking of insulin by a diabetic defendant.

Automatism - total loss of voluntary control

Lastly, it must be proved that there was a total loss of voluntary control. In Broome v Perkins, D had shown at least partial control over his driving so the automatism defence was not available.

[Automatism - self induced?]

[Where the self-induced automatic state is caused by the external factor of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, illegal drugs), D cannot use the defence of automatism (Lipman).]

[If self-induced automatism is not caused by alcohol or illegal drugs then the defence of automatism may be available but only for specific intent crimes, not for crimes of basic intent where D was reckless (Bailey)]