R v Bree [2007]
Through voluntary intoxication, V can temporarily lose their capacity to consent.
- Also that heavy intoxication does not necessarily negate consent
R v H [2005]
- D grabbed V’s trouser pocket
- Court ruled that this could amount to sexual touching (indirect touching)
Developed a ‘test’ to see if touching was sexual or not:
a) Would the jury consider that the touching could be sexual?
b) With regards to the circumstances of the case, had the purpose of the touching been sexual?
R v Jheeta [2007]
- D deceived V into believing that she would be fined by the police if she did not have sex with him.
- Court held that wider deceptions in terms of s74(a) are irrelevant
- D’s deception regarding the police did not impact the nature of the act, sex, or the purpose of the act, sexual gratification
R v Devonald [2008]
- took a wider approach to s74(a) than Jheeta
- D posed as an internet woman ‘Cassey’
- Encouraged V to masturbate on webcam for ‘Cassey’s’ sexual pleasure
- Jury found that D had deceived V as to the purpose of the act - sexual gratification of the wrong person
R v Kingston [1994]
- D’s coffee was spiked with drugs
- Resultantly indecently assaulted a young boy
- Argued that he would not have done if but for the drugs
- Court found that this was not enough to disprove mental element of the offence
DPP v Majewski [1976]
Established that in crimes of voluntary intoxication, even if D lacked mens rea, his intoxication will only provide a defence for specific intent crimes
R v Heard [2007]
Established that sexual assault under s 3 of the SOA 2003 will not allow for a defence of involuntary intoxication.
R v Hardie [1984].
- D upset after a break-up, took friends valiums to calm himself down
- Later started a fire and charged with arson
- Claimed he didn’t know what he was doing because of the drug
- Deemed involuntary intoxication as non-dangerous drug and he could not have predicted his reaction
A.G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]
A defendant who voluntarily intoxicates himself to carry out a crime, will be deemed to have possessed the mens rea.
R v O’Grady [1987]
Where a mistaken belief in the need for force is based on voluntary intoxication, there is no defence.
.
.
Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011]
- V alleged she would only have consent with D if her wore a condom
- Whilst final decision has not been reached, found that this could negate consent as consent can be conditional
R v McNally [2013]
- D, born a female, pretended to be a boy and became sexually acquainted with ‘his’ girlfriend
- This gender deception was later discovered
- Court ruled that deception of gender did not vitiate consent under s74(b)
- But did vitiate consent on the facts
Allen [1988]
Where D voluntarily intoxicates themselves but they do not realise the extent or strength of the intoxication, it is still voluntary.
