INTOXICATION

INTOXICATION

Does not provide defence as such but it is relevant as to whether or not the defendant has the mens rea for the offence.
1. Whether the defendant is guilty depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence charged is one of specific intent or basic intent.
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
1. Where D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance. It also includes when D takes a prescribed drug knowing it will make him intoxicated.
2. If D is so intoxicated that he hasn't formed the mens rea for a specific intent offence then he is not guilty.
  1. DPP V BEARD
  2. GALLAGHER - D decided to kill his wife. He drank whisky to give himself 'Dutch courage' before killing her. He was convicted of murder.
    1. It was held that drunk intent is still intent.
3. Where the offence is one of basic intent then intoxication is not a defence. This is because voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered reckless and recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of basic intent offences.
  1. MAJEWSKI
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
1. This covers situations where D was unaware he was taking an intoxicating substance, eg. his soft drink was laced.
  1. The test is; did D have the mens rea when he committed the offence?
    1. KINGSTON - In this case it was decided that even if D wouldn't have committed the offence if he hadn't of been intoxicated, but had the mens rea when committing the offence, he cannot use the defence.
    2. HARDIE - was not convicted because he didn't have the mens rea nor was he reckless in taking the intoxicating substance, therefore cannot be convicted of either a specific or basic intent offence.
INTOXICATED MISTAKE
1. Where D is mistaken about a key fact because he is intoxicated.
  1. LIPMAN - D had take LSD before falling asleep at his girlfriends flat. D was hallucinating and mistook his girlfriend for attacking snakes. He strangled her. He was convicted of manslaughter because he didn't intend to kill or cause GBH to a human being, but he was reckless in taking the substance.
  2. If the mistake is about the amount of force or need for self-defence the defendant will not have a defence
    1. O'GRADY
    2. HATTON
    3. Set out by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
  3. JAGGARD V DICKINSON - An exception to the rule of intoxicated mistake is the one in this case set out in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This allows an honest belief that the property owner would have consented to the damage.
A02
1. The defence is largely policy based. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 helps protect the public by prevention of crime as defendant cannot use being intoxicated as an excuse for the unacceptable behaviour.
2. For specific intent offences like murder there are fall back offences and the defendant would be charged with the basic intent offence of manslaughter. However, for offences like theft there are no fall back offences and the defendant will not be guilty of any offence. Is it correct for them to walk free?
  1. The Butler Committee proposed the creation of a new offence of 'dangerous intoxication' to cover situations like this which would carry a maximum sentence of 1 year imprisonment. This would meet the needs of public protection as well as deter others when they voluntary intoxicate themselves.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by mel-cooper4 almost 11 years ago