Intoxication

Question 1

What is intoxication and in what forms can they be?

Answer 1

It’s a general defence so available to almost every crime. Can be used:
1. as a way to negate mens rea of an offence
2. or influencing factor on another legal principle/defence

Question 2

How does intoxication work to negate MR?

Answer 2

Allows D to use evidence of their intoxication to show that they did not form necessary MR for offence = if shown, D will be entitled to full acquittal
* burden of proof lies on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D has committed AR with necessary MR despite intoxication
* even where D is intoxicated, they can still be liable as they formed the MR in intoxicated state so no defence to plead they would not have committed offence when sober

Question 3

When can intoxication operate to negate MR?

Answer 3

• in any crime where intoxication is caused by drink or drug taken **involuntarily **
• in any crime where intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily but in bona fide pursuance of medical treatment
• in any crime where intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily
• in crime where a specific intent is required (where offence cannot be committed recklessly)

evidential burden on D to raise issue of intoxication but prosecution needs to prove otherwise

Question 4

What should be asked when addressing whether intoxication operates to negate MR?

Answer 4

1. Is D voluntarily intoxicated or involuntarily intoxicated
2. Is intoxicant a dangerous alchol/drug or non-dangerous drug
3. Is crime a basic or specific intent

Question 5

When does the defence arise - involuntary intoxication?

Answer 5

• defence of intoxication may be available for any offence (basic and specific intent crimes)
• could arise where D is forced or deceived into doing drugs
• where D is aware that they are drinking alchol but is mistaken of strength will not count as involuntary intoxication

Question 6

Voluntary intoxication?

Answer 6

• could be a defence to a charge of specific intent where intoxication negated MR required
• would not be a defence to charge of basic intent
  
  • jury is to consider whether D would have seen the risk had they not been intoxicated

Question 7

Distinction between basic and specific intent?

Answer 7

Basic:
* where D could be convicted on basis of recklessness as to consequences or where no foresight as to consequences is required
* e.g., battery as D must intend or be reckless as to applying unlawful force to another
* also: manslaughter, assault, basic and aggravted criminal damage and causing grievous bodily harm or actual bodily har (s.47 & 20)

Specific:
* those where intention was the only form of MR so recklessness was insufficient MR
* e.g., murder as D must intend to kill ot cause GBH
* also: theft, robbery and causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18)

Question 8

Dangerous and non-dangerous drugs?

Answer 8

• Dangerous drugs: common knowledge that a drug is liable to cause taker to become aggressive or do dangerous things = alcohol and illegal drugs
• Non-dangerous drugs: where its not common knowledge (e.g., sedative drug) - defence of intoxication might be available if D did not form necessary MR

Question 9

Intoxication summary?

Answer 9

Voluntary:
* by dangerous drugs + basic intent = would D have formed MR if sober
* by dangerous drugs + specific intent = defence might be available and so did D still form necessary MR
* by non-dangerous drugs = defence might still be available and so did D form necessary MR

Involuntary:
* defence might be available (baisc + specific) = did D still form necessary MR

Question 10

Intoxication as an influencing factor?

Answer 10

Self defence:
* if D makes a drunken mistake as to need to use self-defnece, they cannot rely on that mistake = prevents D from using defence

Loss of control and diminished responsibility:
* intoxication is no bar to a plea of loss of control or diminished responsibility
* voluntary intoxication is not on its own capable of being relied upon to find defence of DR but if D has an abnormality of mental functioning arising from alcohol dependency syndrome then defence could be available

Murder:
* a drunken mistake is still intent

Consent:
* if V had consented to injury then intoxication is available or D wrongly believed V consented

Statutory defence
* where there is a statutory defence that allows for honest belief then D will be able to use defence even if belief was due to voluntary intoxication
* e.g., criminal damages where there is a defence if D beleives owner would have consented to damage or in theft where D believes owner would consent to D’s appropriation of owner’s property will not be dishonest