Intoxication

Question 1

What happened in DPP v Beard 1920?

Answer 1

D raped a 13 year old girl while intoxicated and put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. She suffocated.

Question 2

Who was the judge in DPP v Beard 1920 and what did he say?

Answer 2

Lord Birkenhead: D didn’t form the mens rea so can’t be guilty of murder. Nevertheless, homicide has been committed.

Question 3

What happened in R v Sheehan and moore 1975?

Answer 3

Ds, in a drunken state, poured petrol over a man and set him a light causing him to die.

Question 4

What was held in R v sheehan and moore 1975?

Answer 4

“Drunken intent is still intent.” Due to being found with a petrol can.

Question 5

What happened in AG for NI v Gallagher 1963?

Answer 5

D was prone to violent outbursts. He wanted to kill his wife and knew that drinking would give him the “Dutch courage” to kill her. He bough the means needed to kill her prior to intox.

Question 6

What did Lord denning say in AG for NI v Gallagher 1963?

Answer 6

“He already made up his mind to kill his wife.”

Question 7

What happened in DPP v Majewski 1977?

Answer 7

D took drugs and committed ABH on multiple people.

Question 8

What was held in DPP v majewski 1977?

Answer 8

Intoxication can’t be relied upon in cases of basic intent. (Namely: ABH).

Question 9

What happened in R v Allen 1988?

Answer 9

D consumed some of his home made wine and it was stronger than expected. He committed sexual assaults while drunk.

Question 10

What was held in R v Allen 1988?

Answer 10

Intoxication was still voluntary even though he didn’t realise the strength of it. Sexual assault is basic intent so he couldn’t rely on intoxication.

Question 11

What happened in R v Heard 2007?

Answer 11

Committed sexual assault under section 3 sexual offences act 2003 but had no recollection. One of basic intent so couldn’t plead intoxication.

Question 12

What happened in R v Lipman 1970?

Answer 12

Took LSD and believed that he was being attacked by snakes. He killed a girl by shoving bed sheets into her mouth.

Question 13

What was held in R v Lipman 1970?

Answer 13

Lacked the mens rea for the specific intent crime of murder. Lessened to manslaughter.

Question 14

What happened R v O’Connor 1991?

Answer 14

D was intoxicated and believed that he was under attack and committed murder.

Question 15

What was held in R v O’Connor 1991?

Answer 15

Intoxication brought his murder conviction down to a manslaughter conviction.

Question 16

What happened in R v Brown and Stratton 1997?

Answer 16

Trial judge asked the jury to judge harm done to victim from the victims standpoint. There was debate around ABH/GBH.

Question 17

What was held in R v brown and Stratton 1997?

Answer 17

Lord Justice Potter said you are supposed to judge objectively and not subjectively from the standpoint of the victim.

Question 18

What happened in R v Hardie 1985?

Answer 18

D set a wardrobe alight after taking his roommates out of date Valium.

Question 19

What was held in R v Hardie 1985?

Answer 19

Parker LJ said: Valium’s intent is to calm the nerves not make him more aggressive.

Question 20

What happened in R v Kingston 1994?

Answer 20

D had a history of urges towards young boys. He was drugged and shown a 15 year old boy. He was then photographed committing indecent assault.

Question 21

What was held in R v Kingston 1994?

Answer 21

It was held that he would have committed this offence despite his intoxicated state.

Question 22

NEGATIVE Evaluation POINTS for Intoxication

Answer 22

1. (-) Contradicts the doctrine of coinciding AR and MR (Fagan v MPC 1969)
2. (-) Courts say having the first drink is reckless as to any basic intent offence.
3. (-) Failure for reform
   4 Unfair measures to gain conviction

Question 23

Paragraph for “Contradicts the doctrine of coinciding AR and MR (Fagan v MPC 1969)”

Answer 23

1. Contradicts the doctrine of coinciding AR and MR (Fagan v MPC 1969).
2. DPP v Majewski 1977: Earlier drinking as reck. for ABH.
3. inconsistency: Stretches the rule to prioritise a conviction.
4. Thabo Meli 1954: Continuing act theory displaces the rule.

Question 24

Paragraph: Courts say having the first drink is reckless as to any basic intent offence.

Answer 24

1. Courts say having the first drink is reckless as to any basic intent offence.
2. DPP v Majewski 1977: his first drink was seen as a “reckless route”
3. Policy driven rather than focussing on actual culpability.
4. R v Heard 2007: Lord Justice Hughes acknowledged these rules involve a large element of policy”.
5. Fails the standard of “foreseeable” in R v Cunningham 1957.
6. Law Commission Report (1993): Intoxication rules “Unfair and Arbitrary”.

Question 25

Paragraph: Failure for reform

Answer 25

1. No sign of reform but consensus Is that the law is unsatisfactory 2. Butler committee 1975: proposed a separate offence of dangerous intoxication. Was criticised for not distinguishing between serious and minor offences. 3. Draft Offences Against the Person Bill (1998): Retained Majewski rules but was never enacted due to some proposals being “unnecessarily complex”. 4. However, this may be due to the fact there are no SET rules with one of the only mentions in statute being s12 licensing act 1872. (Uncertainty).

Question 26

Paragraph: Unfair measures to gain a conviction

Answer 26

1. Unfair measures to gain a conviction 2. R v Kingston 1994: predicts what they would’ve done while sober. 3. R v Brown and Stratton 1997: Trial judge’s subjectivity standards show a bias towards automatic conviction. 4. Violates A6(1) Fair balance and A6(2) Presumption of innocence