MENTAL CAPACITY: INTOXICATION

  • covers situations where D is under influence of drugs, alcohol or other substances e.g sniffing glue

  • must be shown D was so intoxicated by substance that they were incapable of forming the men’s rea of the offence

  • burden of proof on prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

  • A) WAS THE INTOXICATION VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY

  • B) WAS THE OFFENCE ONE OF SPECIFIC OR BASIC INTENT

BASIC INTENT

Recklessness can be part of the mens rea.

E.g : manslaughter, s.20, and 47 OAPA 1861, assault and battery

SPECIFIC INTENT

Intention to kill(malice aforththought) or cause seriously bodily harm can be the only mens rea

E.g : murder, s.18 OAPA 1861

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

  • no defence for crimes of basic intent, as becoming intoxicated voluntarily is considered reckless, which constitutes mens rea for basic intent crimes ‘MAJEWSKI rule’

  • R V SHEEHAN V MOORE: a drunken intent is still an intent (which prosecution must prove). guilty of manslaughter

  • R V LIPMAN: D and his girlfriend took an LSD trip and he stuffed a sheet down her throat. Could not form the mens rea of the offence, so he was not guilty of murder (a specific intent crime) but was convicted of manslaughter (it is a basic intent offence to which intoxication is not defence).

  • AG NI V GALLGHER: D decided to kill his wife and drank whisky to give himself “Dutch courage.” He was convicted of murder as he had formed the intent to kill before he became intoxicated.

  • DPP V MAJEWSKI: D went on ‘bender’ and committed several attacks while under influence of 28 pills and alcohol. All offences D was charged with were basic intent offences. Claimed he had no memory of what he’d done due to substances. HoL held that becoming intoxicated voluntarily was reckless and enough to constitute the mens rea in offence he was charged.

  • R V HEARD: taken to hospital for treatment after self harm when drunk, but when arrived became abusive and sexually assaulted police officer. Guilty as regardless of intoxication, as it was a basic intent offences.

  • R V ALLEN: Sexual assault is a crime of basic intent. got drunk off wine by colleague that was stronger than expected, ended up committing sexual assault. Intoxication still voluntary even if didn’t realise strength of substance(s).

INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

  • covers situations where 1. D didn’t know they had taken intoxicating substances, like spiking (R V KINGSTON); 2. D underestimates or didn’t know the strength of what they were taking (R V ALLEN); 3. D didn’t realise the effect of the prescribed drugs (like valium) (R V HARDIE). The rules are:

  • THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ARGUE THAT THEY DID NOT FORM THE MENS REA WHETHER THE OFFENCE IS SPECIFIC OR BASIC INTENT BUT IF THE PROSECUTION CAN PROVE THAT THEY DID FOR THE MENS REA- THEY WILL BE LIABLE, EVEN IF THEY WOULDNT HAVE DONE THE OFFENCE WHILST DRUNK.

  • R V HARDIE: argued with girlfriend, took valium to calm down- they had been prescribed but were out of date, set fire to girlfriend’s wardrobe. Remembered nothing due to invol. intoxication which was allowed, arson basic intent crime.

  • R V KINGSTON: The D had paedophile tendencies, and was drugged and then filmed abusing a little boy. Guilty of indecent assault as he had formed the mens rea for an offence before becoming intoxicated, and involuntary intoxication could not be a defence.

  • R V O’GRADY: A man killed his friend after a drinking session, claiming he did so in mistaken self-defence but could not remember the events. D claimed self-defence. The court held that the mistaken use of excessive force due to intoxication was not to be relied upon when intoxicated.

  • R V HATTON: D had drink a lot of beer and found V dead. He thought he had acted in self-defence but could not remember the events. Decision in O’Grady applied to both specific and basic intent offences. A drunker mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence was not a defence.

  • R V TAJ: D drank heavily and later, while in the grip of post-intoxication psychosis, became convinced that a man was a terrorist. The phrase ‘attributable to intoxication’ (from s76(5) of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) was not confined to cases in which alcohol or drugs were still present in a d’s system, appeal failed.

  • R V ALLEN: D was drinking wine that he had made/someone else had made, when drunk committed various sexual assault on young girls. Decided his intoxication wasn’t involuntary but voluntary- should have known drinking alcohol may lead to consequence.