Intoxication

• What are factors that guilty depends on for the defence of intoxication?

  • Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
  • The offence charged is one of specific or basic intent
• What are the factors for voluntary intoxication?

  • Chose to take an intoxicating substance 
  • knows the effect of taking a drug will be to make them intoxicated.
• What cases can be used for specific intent crimes done under voluntary intoxication?

  R v Lipman: D and his GF had been taking LSD and he took his GF for a snake during a hallucination and killed her, D was not guilty of murder and was dropped to manslaughter as he didn’t have the MR. So, if D doesn’t have the MR of a specific intent crimes the jury can find D guilty of an alternative basic intent crime

  Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher: D decided to kill his wife, so he drank a large amount of whiskey before to give him Dutch courage. He was found guilty of murder as drunken intent is still intent and cannot use alcohol for dutch courage.
• What cases can be used for basic intent crimes done under voluntary intoxication?

  R v Majewski: The D had been drinking and taking drugs when he committed S.47 on the landlord of a pub. He was found guilty as becoming voluntarily intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct, enough to satisfy the MR for basic intent crimes

  R v Allen: D voluntarily drank some home-made wine of an unknown strength and was convicted of sexual assault, which is a basic intent crime. Therefore, the voluntary intoxication was a reckless course of conduct.
• What is an intoxicated mistake?

  If the D is mistaken about a key fact because they are intoxicated, it depends on what the mistake was.

  1. If a mistake was made regarding an element of a specific intent crime, the D will have the defence as siding have the necessary MR
  2. Where the offence is one of basic intent, the D has no defence
  3. However if the mistake is about another aspect like the amount of force used, the D cannot use the defence. Applied to both types of crime.
• What cases can be used for an intoxicated mistake?

  R v O’Grady: D woke up after drinking claiming the V was hitting him so he hit back causing 20 wounds to the face and breaking his ribs before going back to sleep. D only remembered hitting the V once with an ashtray in self-defence. 

  R v Hatton: D drunk 20 pints and hit the V with a sledgehammer in self-defence but the D thought he was hitting the V with a stick.
• What is the rule of involuntary intoxication?

  When the D didn’t know they were taking the intoxicating substance. This could be through spiking, taking something prescribed that has an unforeseeable effect forcing another to take an intoxicant, or mistaking the intoxicant for a non-intoxicant.

  The D can argue they didn’t form the MR despite the type of crime. If the prosecution can prove they did form it, they will be guilty.
• What case can be used for involuntary intoxication?

  R v Kingston: D was spiked by a man who wanted to blackmail him. He was then shown a 15 yr old boy unconscious and was invited to abuse him. The D, who had paedophilic tendencies, did so and was photographed. The House of Lord held if he was let off as he couldn’t form the MR, there might be issues of abusers making false claims they were involuntarily intoxicated. So was convicted of indecent assault. 
• What does S.76 of the Crime Justice Immigration Act 2008 state?

  S.76 states that reason force may be used for the purposes of self-defence

  But S.76(5) states that this doesn’t enable to D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.
• What does 'attributable to intoxication' mean?

   As a result of being intoxicated and immediately or after earlier consumption of intoxicants, so even if the D isn’t drunk or intoxicated at the rime, the short term effects could trigger subsequent episodes like paranoia
• What case can be used for attributable to intoxication?

  R v Taj: D began abusing alcohol as a child which brought on psychosis that made him hear voices. It would linger after it wore off. He was convinced a Muslim Man was a terrorist and tried to kill him. He wasn’t able to use the defence as his mistaken belief was still attributable to intoxication