intoxication

Question 1

What is intoxication in criminal law?

Answer 1

Intoxication is not a defence by itself.
It’s only relevant if it prevents the defendant forming mens rea (the guilty mind).

Question 2

what are the types of intoxication?

Answer 2

-Voluntary intoxication
When the defendant chooses to take alcohol or drugs.
Examples:
•Drinking alcohol
•Taking illegal drugs
•Taking medication knowing it may cause intoxication

-Involuntary intoxication
When the defendant did not choose to become intoxicated.
Examples:
•Drink spiked
•Forced to take drugs
•Unexpected reaction to prescribed medication (taken properly)

Question 3

what are specific intent offences?

Answer 3

Offences that require intent beyond the act itself.

Examples you MUST know:
•Murder
•Section 18 GBH
•Theft
•Robbery
•Burglary (with intent)
•Wounding with intent

Question 4

what is basic intent offences?

Answer 4

Offences where recklessness is enough.
Examples:
•Assault
•Battery
•Section 47 ABH
•Section 20 GBH
•Criminal damage
•Manslaughter

Question 5

Voluntary intoxication + specific intent

Answer 5

Can be a defence - If intoxication means the defendant did not form the required mens rea, they cannot be guilty of the specific intent offence.

Case: R v Sheehan and Moore (1975)

⚠️ HOWEVER:
Defendant may still be guilty of a basic intent offence instead.

Question 6

R v Sheehan and Moore (1975)?

Answer 6

Defendants too drunk to form intent for murder → murder conviction quashed.

Question 7

Voluntary intoxication + basic intent

Answer 7

NOT a defence - By choosing to get intoxicated, the defendant is reckless.

case: DPP v Majewski (1977)

Question 8

DPP v Majewski (1977)

Answer 8

Voluntary intoxication is reckless → satisfies mens rea for basic intent crimes.

Question 9

Involuntary intoxication + specific intent offence

Answer 9

•If the defendant did NOT form the specific intent
→ NOT guilty
•If the defendant DID form the intent
→ GUILTY

Case: R v Kingston (1994)
Even though intoxication was involuntary, intent was present → guilty.

Question 10

R v Kingston (1994)?

Answer 10

Even though intoxication was involuntary, intent was present → guilty.

Question 11

Involuntary intoxication + basic intent offence?

Answer 11

•If the defendant did NOT form mens rea (including recklessness)
→ NOT guilty

Case: R v Hardie (1985)
Unexpected reaction to Valium → possible lack of recklessness → acquittal.

Question 12

R v Hardie (1985)

Answer 12

Unexpected reaction to Valium → possible lack of recklessness → acquittal.

Question 13

mistakes caused by intoxication - voluntary intoxication

Answer 13

❌ Defendant cannot rely on intoxicated mistakes.

📌 Case:
R v O’Grady (1987)
Drunken mistake about self-defence → not allowed.

Question 14

mistakes caused by intoxication- involuntary intoxication

Answer 14

Mistakes can be relied on
(as long as they’re honestly held)

Case:
R v Hardie (1985)
Unexpected reaction to Valium → could negate mens rea.

Question 15

R v Hardie (1985)

Answer 15

Unexpected reaction to Valium → could negate mens rea.

Question 16

Dutch courage

Answer 16

Drinking to build confidence before committing a crime.

Never a defence

Case:
R v Gallagher (1963)
Drank whiskey to gain courage to kill → still guilty of murder.

Question 17

R v Gallagher (1963)

Answer 17

Drank whiskey to gain courage to kill → still guilty of murder.

Question 18

Drugs vs alcohol

Answer 18

There is no legal difference.

Case:
R v Lipman (1970)
LSD hallucination → murder charge reduced to manslaughter.

Question 19

R v Lipman (1970)

Answer 19

LSD hallucination → murder charge reduced to manslaughter.

Question 20

negatives of the law of intoxication

Answer 20

•Defence of intoxication is complex and confusing for juries:
Requires understanding voluntary vs involuntary intoxication
Also depends on basic vs specific intent distinction
These distinctions are highly technical and hard to apply
Risk that juries misunderstand when intoxication is relevant
In DPP v Majewski (1977), the House of Lords confirmed that voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent crimes, but this rule relies on juries correctly identifying the type of offence involved.

•The law is also seen as particularly harsh on cases of voluntary intoxication:
voluntary intoxication provides no defence to basic intent crimes, even if the defendant was so intoxicated that they could not form the required mens rea. In R v Lipman (1970), the defendant’s intoxication did not prevent liability for manslaughter. Critics argue this is unfair, as it contradicts the idea that mens rea must be proven. However, a counterargument is that choosing to consume alcohol or drugs is itself reckless, and therefore the defendant is blameworthy from the outset.

•the law on involuntary intoxication can be inconsistent and difficult to apply:
Defence only succeeds if mens rea is completely absent
Very difficult to prove lack of mens rea in practice
In R v Kingston (1994), the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated but still convicted because he had formed the necessary intent. This decision has been criticised as unfair, as the defendant was not at fault for becoming intoxicated.

Question 21

positives of the law of intoxication

Answer 21

•the current law can be defended on public policy grounds:
holding intoxicated defendants liable helps protects the public from alcohol related crime
the decision in DDP v Majewski supports the view that choosing to drink itself is reckless

•personal responsibility:
it can be argued that individuals should take responsibility for their actions when intoxicated. allowing intoxication as a defence too easily could encourage irresponsible behaviour

•involuntary intoxication:
the law appears to be more sympathetic on involuntary intoxication. however kingston demonstrates the defence will fail is men’s tea is present. this has been criticised as unfair where the defendant was not at fault for their intoxication

Question 22

reform

Answer 22

the law commission has suggested that the law on intoxication is unclear and is in need of reform