Intoxication

Intoxication

1. Complete defence

   • Covers intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances, such as glue sniffing

2. Legal principle V Public policy

3. Voluntary Intoxication

   • This means D has chosen to become intoxicated. Can also occur where D knows that the effect of a prescribed drug from a doctor will be able to make him intoxicated. The law deals with voluntary intoxication more strictly than with involuntary intoxication.
   • Where D is voluntary intoxicated, D has a complete defence to a crime of specific intent, providing the intoxication prevents D forming the necessary intention: DPP v BEARD (1920)
     • HOWEVER
       • If D, despite his intoxicated state, still has the necessary mens rea, then he is guilty of the offence. The intoxication does not provide a defence.
         • In SHEEHAN AND MOORE (1975), it was said that 'a drunken intent is nevertheless and intent'. D will only be able to rely on the defence if s/he is so completely intoxicated that s/he had absolutely no idea what s/he was doing.
   • If D plans a specific intent crime but then intoxicates himself as to gain 'Dutch courage' to commit it, he is still guilty becayse he formed the necessary mens rea for the crime before getting intoxicated: A-G FOR NORTHERN IRELAND v GALLAGHER (1963).
   • Where the offence charged is one of basic intent, voluntary intoxication is not a defence. This is because voluntarily getting intoxicated is considered a 'reckless course of conduct' and recklessness is enough to form the mens rea of the offence: DPP v MAJEWSKI (1977)
     • COMMENT: Although it is reasonable to say that D is reckless when s/he takes intoxicating substances, this does not necessarily mean that when s/he commits an offence 3 or 4 hours later that s/he is automatically reckless for the purpose of the offence.
       • However, the CofA in RICHARDSON AND IRWIN (1999) took a softer approach by saying that in basic intent cases, the court should assume that D was sober and then assess whether or not D would have foreseen the relevant harm in that condition. This seems fairer.
         • Majewski rules clearly reflect public policy considerations at the expense of legal principles
   • The Fall- Back Principle
     • For most offences of specific intent there is a similar lesser crime for which basic intent suffices, providing a fall-back position Eg. Murder - involuntary manslaughter.
       • In this case, intoxication acts as a partial defence. D does not 'get off' completely. Considered as fair.
         • However, where there is a specific intent offence which does not have a fall-back offence (eg theft), intoxication can become a complete defence.

4. Involuntary Intoxication

5. Specific intent

   • These are crimes which generally can only be committed intentionally.
     • EG. attempted crimes
       • Murder
         • S.18 OAPA 1861
           • Theft
             • Robbery
               • Burglary

6. Basic intent

   • These are crimes which generally can be committed intentionally and/or recklessly.
     • EG. Involuntary manslaughter
       • S.20 OAPA 1861
         • ABH (S.47 OAPA)
           • Assault and battery