Law of Intoxication

Introduction to the Doctrine of Intoxication

Conceptual Complexity: Intoxication is considered a highly complicated doctrine to apply within criminal law. This complexity arises from a fundamental tension: the legal system is reluctant to allow individuals to utilize intoxication as a defense for their actions.
The Balancing Act: The law must perform a delicate balancing act. * Side A: Respecting criminal law principles that a defendant should not be held liable if they truly lacked the necessary mens rea (guilty mind). * Side B: Fulfilling the public policy requirement to protect society from violence and chaos, as many crimes are committed under the influence of intoxicants.
Strict Public Policy: There is a strict public policy designed to prevent people from successfully arguing they lack criminal liability simply because they chose to become intoxicated. At its core, the general principle is that intoxication is not a defense to a criminal offense.
Lowered Inhibitions: The law recognizes that intoxicants lower a person's inhibitions. If intoxication were a general defense, it would be considered against the principles of societal protection.

Defining Intoxication in a Legal Context

Absence of Formal Definition: There is no specific legal definition of "intoxication" found in UK statute or case law.
Broad Scope: The term is interpreted more broadly than just alcohol consumption. It encompasses the consumption of any substance that can alter brain function, including: * Alcohol. * Cocaine. * Cannabis.
No Hierarchical Distinction: The law makes no formal distinction between the level of intoxication achieved or the specific type of substance utilized.
Exception for Medical Usage: A critical distinction exists when a defendant uses substances that have an intoxicating effect to treat an underlying medical condition. Examples include: * Valium (Diazepam). * Certain components of Insulin (relevant to studies of automatism and insanity).
Applicability of Normal Principles: If a substance is taken for legitimate medical reasons, the specific rules regarding intoxication do not apply. Instead, the normal principles of criminal liability are utilized.

Judicial Commentary and the Threat to Society

The Majewski Precedent: The leading case in this area is Majewski. Judicial commentary in this case highlights the threat intoxication poses to society.
Lord Simon's Perspective: In Majewski, Lord Simon noted that the primary purpose of criminal law is to protect society from "unprovoked violence." * He argued that if a defendant were found not liable because an intoxicant rendered them unable to form the mens rea, society would remain unprotected from such violence.
The Intent Principle: Lord Justice Lane in Sheehan famously asserted that "a drunken intent is nevertheless intent." This principle remains a cornerstone of the doctrine.
Exeter Example: The speaker illustrates the societal impact by referencing behaviors seen on the streets of Exeter on a night out, specifically on a Wednesday when sports societies are active. This illustrates how individuals are more likely to commit crimes and act unreasonably when using intoxicating substances.
The "Blackout" Phenomenon: While individuals may experience a "blackout" (an inability to remember actions in the moment), the law generally refuses to accept this state as a valid excuse for criminal behavior.

Involuntary Intoxication and the Case of Kingston

Rule of General Intent: The principle that "drunken intent is intent" applies regardless of whether the consumption was voluntary or involuntary.
Case Study: Kingston [1994]: * Facts: Kingston and a co-defendant, Penn, were charged with the indecent assault of a 15-year-old boy. Penn had been hired to acquire compromising information on Kingston (who was known to have pedophilic tendencies). Penn secretly laced Kingston’s coffee with an inhibitive drug. * The Incident: Kingston and Penn entered a room where the victim was unconscious (also drugged by Penn). Both performed non-penetrative sexual acts on the victim, which Penn recorded. * Legal History: At trial, Kingston admitted his tendencies but claimed he usually kept them under control. He was convicted. The Court of Appeal initially allowed his appeal, arguing that because the drugs were taken involuntarily, his lowered inhibitions were not his fault. * House of Lords Ruling: The House of Lords reinstated the conviction. They reaffirmed that even if the intoxication was involuntary, if the defendant nonetheless formed the mens rea (the intent) to commit the act, they are liable. Reduced inhibitions via drugs do not negate existing intent.

Intoxication and the Negation of Mens Rea

Conceptual Role: If intoxication is not a defense, why is it studied? It is studied because it can impact a defendant's actual ability to form the mens rea.
Evidential Basis: Intoxication may provide the evidential basis for a lack of mens rea. Since criminal liability requires both actus reus and mens rea, a defendant who truly lacks mens rea due to their state might not be liable for certain crimes.
Case Study: Lipman [1970]: * Facts: The defendant consumed LSD and experienced a hallucination that he was fighting snakes at the center of the earth. In reality, he was stuffing bedclothes down his girlfriend's throat, resulting in her death. * Outcome: The jury accepted that his intoxication was so severe that he lacked the mens rea for murder (the intent to kill or cause GBH). He was not liable for murder but was found liable for manslaughter.
Application to Section 18 vs. Section 20: * Section 18 Offenses Against the Person Act: Requires specific intent to cause wounding or grievous bodily harm (GBH). * Section 20 Offenses Against the Person Act: Only requires recklessness. * Effect: Intoxication might prevent a conviction for a Section 18 offense but allow for a conviction under Section 20.

The Doctrine of Prior Fault

Definition: The courts created the doctrine of "prior fault" because intoxication is considered destabilizing to society. If a defendant is at fault prior to the commission of the crime (by getting intoxicated), they can be held liable even if they lacked mens rea at the exact moment of the act.
"Dutch Courage": This occurs when a defendant consumes intoxicants specifically to gain the nerve to commit a crime.
Case Study: Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]: * Facts: Gallagher drank a significant amount of alcohol specifically to help him kill his wife. * Ruling: The House of Lords ruled that because he had formed the mens rea to kill before consuming the alcohol, his subsequent drunken state during the act was irrelevant. Intoxication is never a defense in cases of Dutch courage.

Four Requirements for Prior Fault Liability

To establish criminal liability via prior fault when a defendant lacks mens rea during the actus reus, four criteria must be satisfied:

Voluntary Intoxication: The consumption must be the result of the defendant's own free will.
Basic Intent Offense: The offense charged must be a crime of "basic intent" rather than "specific intent."
Dangerous Intoxicant: The substance consumed must be categorized as a dangerous intoxicant.
Causal Link: The lack of mens rea must be directly caused by the intoxicant voluntarily consumed.

Requirement 1: Voluntary Intoxication

Strict Interpretation: This is narrowly construed by the courts.
Case Study: Allen [1985]: * Facts: Allen was charged with indecent assault and the (now archaic) offense of buggery. He had consumed a large quantity of his friend's strong homemade wine. He argued that because he did not know the strength of the wine, his intoxication was involuntary. * Ruling: The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction. He voluntarily chose to drink the wine knowing it contained alcohol; the specific potency of the alcohol was irrelevant.
Addiction and Involuntariness: * Tandy [1989]: Recognized that addiction to alcohol could potentially make consumption involuntary, but the threshold is extremely high. * Stewart [1995]: The Court of Appeal clarified that for addiction to render consumption involuntary, the defendant must have an "irresistible craving" or a total compulsion to consume the substance.

Requirement 2: Basic vs. Specific Intent

Historical Context: In the 19th century, the absolute ban on intoxication-based arguments was relaxed to mitigate harsh sentencing (e.g., execution or transportation) for those who killed while drunk.
The Split: * Specific Intent Crimes: Crimes where intoxication can be used to argue a lack of mens rea (e.g., Murder, Section 18 GBH). * Basic Intent Crimes: Crimes where intoxication is not a defense due to prior fault (e.g., Manslaughter, Assault, ABH, Section 20 GBH).
Majewski [1977] as Authority: The House of Lords confirmed intoxication only applies to specific intent crimes. However, it failed to provide a clear, logical test to distinguish between basic and specific intent.
Interpreting Majewski: * Recklessness Interpretation: The most popular view is that basic intent offenses are those that can be committed recklessly. This includes negligence and strict liability offenses. * The "Ulterior Intent" Interpretation from Heard [2007]: * The Court of Appeal in Heard (a sexual assault case) attempted to clarify the definitions. * Basic Intent: The mens rea matches the actus reus (e.g., Assault). * Ulterior Intent (Specific): The mens rea goes beyond the actus reus.
Example of Ulterior Intent: Aggravated Criminal Damage: * AR: Destroying/damaging property belonging to another. * MR 1: Intention/recklessness as to the destruction of property (matches AR). * MR 2: Intention/recklessness as to whether life was endangered. There is no requirement for life to actually be endangered (no corresponding AR), thus it is "ulterior."
Critique of Heard: This test fails for Murder, as the intent (to kill or cause GBH) does not go "beyond" the result of the actus reus (death).
Practical Application: Lord Salmon noted that the distinction is based on "common sense" rather than pure logic. Students should rely on established lists (e.g., in textbooks) to identify the category of a crime.

Requirement 3: Dangerous Intoxicants

Common Sense Test: It is generally for the jury to decide what is dangerous.
Medical Limit: Substances taken for legitimate medical purposes are generally considered non-dangerous.
Case Study: Bailey [1983]: * Facts: A diabetic took insulin but failed to eat, leading to a hypoglycemic state where he hit a man with an iron bar. * Ruling: Insulin was not considered a "dangerous intoxicant," thus prior fault did not apply to a wounding with intent charge.
Case Study: Hardie [1985]: * Facts: The defendant took 5 Valium tablets to calm down after being told to move out. He subsequently set a wardrobe on fire with no memory of the event. * Ruling: Valium was taken for a sedative purpose and was not "dangerous." His conviction for arson was quashed.

Requirement 4: The Causal Link

Richardson and Irwin [1999]: * Facts: University students drinking heavily dangled a friend over a 10-foot balcony. The friend fell and was injured. * Legal Issue: The judge originally told the jury to use an objective test (what a sober, reasonable person would foresee). * Ruling: The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The correct test is subjective: Would this specific defendant have foreseen the risk of injury had they been sober? This is a question of fact for the jury.

Theoretical Perspectives: Simester and Inculpation

A.P. Simester's View: Simester argues in "Intoxication is Never a Defense" that intoxication should be viewed not as a defense but as a "doctrine of inculpation."
Constructive Liability: According to Simester, the consumption of alcohol makes actions more likely to be seen as blameworthy. It helps the prosecution establish liability rather than helping the defendant avoid it.
Explaining Manslaughter: This explains why a drunken killing results in a manslaughter conviction rather than a full acquittal; the law constructs liability relative to the prior fault of getting drunk.

Intoxicated Mistakes and Defenses

General Rule (Gladstone Williams): Usually, a genuine mistake (even if unreasonable) can exculpate a defendant from liability based on the facts as they believed them to be.
The Intoxication Exception (Hatton): If a mistake is based on intoxication, the general rule of exculpation does not apply.
The Anomalous Exception (Jaggard v Dickinson): * Facts: An intoxicated woman damaged a property thinking it was her friend’s house (where she had permission to enter). * Ruling: Under $Section \, 5(2)(a)$ of the Criminal Damage Act, an "honest belief" in consent is a defense. The court allowed this even though the belief was intoxicated. * McGhee [2013]: The High Court expressed doubt about Jaggard and refused to apply it to road traffic offenses, narrowing its application.
Case Study: Taj [2018]: * Facts: The defendant (with a history of drug/alcohol abuse) attacked a broken-down motorist, mistakenly believing he was a terrorist with explosives. * Status: He was not currently intoxicated (no drugs/alcohol in his blood), but he was suffering a paranoid episode caused by past habitual use. * Ruling: The Court of Appeal held that a mistake is "intoxicated" if the mental state would not have arisen "but for" the prior consumption of intoxicants. This significantly narrows the scope for self-defense in such cases.