Intoxication

Question 1

What is intoxication?

Answer 1

Intoxication is a common law defence which is only available in limited circumstances.

Question 2

What is it based on?

Answer 2

It is based on a failure to form mens Rea due to alcohol, drugs or other substances

Question 3

What does the defence depend on to be available?

Answer 3

• whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary, and
• whether the offence is charged is one of specific intent or basic intent

Question 4

Does intention need to be proved for specific offences

Answer 4

Intention must be proved

Crimes like murder, s.18, theft, robbery and burglary

Question 5

Does intention need to be proved for basic intent offences

Answer 5

No, recklessness is enough

Crimes like manslaughter, s.20 & s.47, assault and Battery

Question 6

What is voluntary intoxication

Answer 6

This is where D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance

Question 7

What is voluntary intoxication a defence to

Answer 7

specific intent offences provided that D is so intoxicated they have not formed the mr for the cirme

Question 8

What happened in Sheehan and Moore (1975)

Answer 8

D’s, who were very drunk, threw petrol over a homeless person and set fire to him. They were too drunk to have formed an intent to kill or cause GBH.

Question 9

What was the law in Sheehan and Moore

Hint: petrol over homeless man

Answer 9

Ratio: Becuase D’s did not have the mr for murder, intoxication was a defence to that offence. However they were guilty of manslaughter

Question 10

What happened in Gallagher

Answer 10

D decided to kill his wife and drank a lot of whisky to give himself “the bottle” to Cary it out. His conviction for murder was upheld.

Question 11

What was the law in Gallagher

Hint: killed his wife and drank a lot of whisky

Answer 11

Ratio: If D has the MR then he is guilty, even if he would not have committed the offence if sober. In this case the intnet was formed prior to the intoxication

Question 12

Why is voluntary intoxication not a defence to basic intent crimes?

Answer 12

This is bc voluntarily becoming intoxicated is a reckless thing to do and recklessness is enough for the mr

Question 13

What happened in Majewski

Answer 13

D went on a drink and drug binge, then assaulted 3 people and the arresting police offers

Question 14

What was the law in Majewski

Hint: drink and drug binge

Answer 14

Ratio: was convicted of s.47 OAPA 1861 as it is a basic intent offence. D was regarded as reckless when he got drunk. This recklessness is enough to replace the MR of the offence

Question 15

Will intoxication be considered voluntary where D knows they are taking an intoxicant even though D may not realise the strength of it

Answer 15

Yes this was shown in the case of Allen

Question 16

What happened in Allen 1988

Answer 16

D Drink homemade wine which had a much greater effect than he expected. He then committed SA. Claimed he was drunk he did not know what he was doing

Question 17

What is Involuntary intoxication

Answer 17

This is where D did not know they were taking an intoxicating substance. It includes situations when prescribed medication is taken and has an unpredictable effect. (Hardie)

Question 18

What happened in Hardie

Answer 18

D took Valium tablets which had an unexpected effect.

Question 19

What was the law in Hardie

Hint: Valium tablets

Answer 19

Ratio: D cannot be guilty of a basic intent offence because he had not been reckless in getting intoxicated

Question 20

What is involuntary intoxication a defence to

Answer 20

It is a defence to specific and basic intent offences

Question 21

Is there a defence if D still formed the MR despite being intoxicated

Answer 21

NO then intoxication is not a defence (Kingston)

Question 22

What happened in Kingston (1994)

Answer 22

D’s coffee was drugged by men intending to blackmail him. He was then shown a 15 year old boy who was asleep and abused him. He was photographed and claimed he wouldn’t have committed the act if he was sober.

Question 23

What was the law in Kingston

Hint: 15 year old boy and coffee drugged

Answer 23

Ratio: even though D’s drink was spiked, involuntary intoxication was not a defence as D had formed the necessary intent when the offence was committed

Question 24

What is the link between intoxication and mistake

Answer 24

That if a mistake is induce by intoxication there is rarely a defence (Lipman)

Question 25

What happened in Lipman (1970)

Answer 25

D took LSD and had hallucinations. He suffocated his GF to death thinking she was a snake

Question 26

What was the law in Lipman Hint: LSD

Answer 26

D did not have the mr for murder, however he was reckless in voluntarily taking the drug and so was guilty of manslaughter

Question 27

If an intoxicated mistake is about self defence or prevention of crime will D have a defence

Answer 27

No, D will never have a defence whether the crime is one of specific or basic intent (Taj)

Question 28

What happened in the case of Taj?

Answer 28

D began drug and alcohol abuse as a child, which led to a psychosis that made him hear voices and become aggressive and paranoid. The psychosis would linger after the intoxication wore off. D drank heavily and while in a psychosis he became convinced he saw a man trying to detonate a bomb. He attacked and nearly killed him but pleaded self defence. The defence failed becuase of intoxication