Intoxication

• Covers alcohol, drugs or other substances, i.e. glue sniffing

• An indicator whether D had the necessary mens rea

• Depends on whether:

  • the crime is one of basic or specfic intent

  • whether intoxication was voluntary or involuntary

Voluntary intoxication

Specific Intent

• Reduces offence to basic intent crime (i.e. Murder to manslaughter), OR

• Complete defence

Basic Intent

• Not available - recklessness does not apply to voluntary intoxication

AO3

• Not fair to have someone have their sentence reduced for the same voluntary intoxication

Can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence

• Sheehan and Moore - Ds poured petrol over a homeless man and set him alight in a drunken state, he died. Prosecution unable to find mens rea so they were convicted of unlawful act manslaughter

  • Unfair - they had to understand what they were doing as they had poured petrol over V and they were also voluntarily intoxicated

But if D still had necessary mens rea despite drunken state - “Dutch courage” so no defence

• AG for N Ireland v Gallagher - D bought a knife and a bottle of whickey to kill his wife. He drank to get “Dutch courage” before killing his wife. His conviction was upheld since he formed the intention before he had gotten drunk.

For basic intent crimes, defence not available

• Majewski (1977) - D was drunk and consumed drugs, he atacked the pub owner and police. “Voluntary intoxication is a reckless course of conduct and recklessess is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases”

  • The sentence should be related to the crime, not your intoxication - deemed unfair

Involuntary intoxication

Covers situations where D was unaware of toxic substances - i.e. spiked drinks, unexpected effects of prescribed drugs

Test - Did D have the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence?

• If yes = guilty, no defence Kingston (1994) “a drugged/drunken intent is still an intent”

• If no = not even guilty for crimes of basic intent because the D had not been reckless

  • Hardie (1985) - taking someone else’s prescribed drugs

Sentencing

Specific intent

• Available for all crime unless mena rea was formed before intoxication

Basic Intent

• Available for all crime unless mena rea was formed before intoxication

AO3 EVALUATION

Voluntary Intoxication

• Unjust to offer a defence to those who are reckless enough to get drunk and become violent

• Voluntary intoxication is really an aggravating factor rather than an allowable excuse

• If the defence is readly available, all criminals would get drunk before committing a crime in order to then raise the defence

• Comparale to rules on self-induced automatism (robotic-ness), so this is consistent