Intoxication AO3

Introduction

Intoxication refers to when an individual’s mental faculties are impaired due to drugs, alcohol or other harmful substances, meaning D does not have the necessary mens rea for the offence

→ Link to Question

Distinction between specific intent/ basic intent crimes

  • The distinction between basic and specific intent crimes is of major importance when evaluating the impact of the defence

  • Crimes of specific intent require a premeditated intention (direct or oblique), this means you cannot be reckless for crimes of specific intent

  • The law on intoxication says if you are charged with a specific intent crime, it can be reduced to one of basic intent, for a lesser sentence, for example, Murder goes to manslaughter

  • → R v Sheehan and Moore→ Ds were so drunk they could not form the specific intent required for murder.

  • An issue occurs where some specific intent crimes have no basic intent fallback, e.g. theft, robbery, in cases like these, D may be let off completely of the crime which causes inconsistencies as depending on the crime, the outcome may be different

  • → R v Lipman →D, under the influence of LSD, killed his girlfriend believing she was a snake. While his intoxication negated the specific intent for murder, he was still convicted of manslaughter

  • It can be argued if the offence was theft, D would have been acquitted fully, but as it was murder he still has to serve a sentence

  • Inconsistency in the law of Intoxication, highlighted by Law Commission in 2009

Distinction between Voluntary/ Involuntary Intoxication

  • A person who has voluntarily become intoxicated will not be able to rely on the defence for basic intent crimes

  • This was stated in R V Majewski- Voluntary intoxication will not be allowed the defence as the reckless mens rea was formed when D became intoxicated

  • In contrast, If a person was involuntarily intoxicated e.g. a spiked drink, they will be able to rely on the defence of intoxication, as it will be held that they did not have the necessary mens rea

  • → This can be seen in R V Hardie - D took Valium (a calming drug) and caused damage in an unusual way, the drug was not known to cause aggression, so the court allowed the defence.

  • The distinction has been argued that it has been applied too rigidly, as for instance, if someone who had drinks to celebrate, with no intent to cause harm, wouldn’t be able to get the same defence as someone who had their drink spiked and was involuntarily intoxicated → Law must balance public policy

  • Law Commission 2009 developed a fault principle instead of using the approach to determine how D was intoxicated

Drunken Mistake

  • A drunken mistake will not be relied upon if D was voluntarily intoxicated

  • R V O’Grady- D, while drunk, believed he was being attacked by his friend and killed him in what he claimed was self-defence, the court did not allow it as D was intoxicated

  • Confirmed in R V Hatton→ Drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence was not a defence

  • → this rule acts as a paternalistic function, to prevent individuals becoming intoxicated and being violent

  • An exception to the rule was seen in Jaggard v Dickinson - D, while drunk, broke into what she mistakenly believed was her friend’s house, thinking she had permission to enter. D was charged with criminal damage, but the court held that D’s “honest belief” in consent (drunken mistake) was allowed to act as a defence as it was mentioned in the statute

  • → This inconsistency makes the law more confusing and difficult for the judges to apply, the exception also creates uncertainty

Intention existing before intoxication

  • The law does not allow the defence of intoxication to apply if D had the required mens rea before he was intoxicated, and carried out the act when he was intoxicated

  • AG Northern Ireland V Gallagher- D decided to kill his wife, he bought a knife to do so, and then drank enough to become intoxicated to give himself “dutch courage” before killing his wife, his murder conviction was upheld as the intent was present before D was intoxicated

  • → This rule is fair as it upholds public policy by preventing people from getting intoxicated and commit crimes and be able to get acquitted

  • The rule of intention before intoxication can be used unfairly, especially when D is involuntarily intoxicated

  • Kingston- D had paedophile tendencies and he was drugged and filmed with a boy, who he sexually assaulted→ it was held the mens rea was formed before D became intoxicated so the defence could not apply

  • → This was unjust as the intoxication may have been the cause for D to act, and because he was involuntarily drugged, he is being punished for something which he might not have intended to do, however it is still good as if they found him not guilty it would cause public outrage

  • Rule is applied harshly and can lead to unfair outcomes

Conclusion

Intoxication is an unorganised, inconsistent defence, and is in need of reform (Law commission 2009)

→ Link to Question