Intoxication

• Voluntary Intoxication

  • D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance
  • Knows that the effect of taking a prescribed drug will make them intoxicated

  Coley (2013)

  D regularly used cannabis and attacked his neighbors with a knife. He said he had blacked out and psychiatrists thought that he had a mild psychotic episode induced by the cannabis. Convicted of attempted murder as his state of mind was caused by voluntary intoxication.
• Specific Intent Offence

  • When D commits an SI offence without mens rea, the defense is available.
  • When D commits an SI offence with mens rea, the defense is not available.

  DPP v Beard (1920)

  D was charged with murder and put forward the defense that he was too intoxicated to have formed the MR for murder - a specific intent offence.

  Lord Birkenhead - "If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent requires, he could not be convicted of a crime which could be committed only if the intent was proved."
• Specific Intent Cases - 1/3

  Sheehan and Moore (1975)

  The defendants were very drunk when they threw petrol over a homeless man and set him on fire. They were too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). It was held that because they did not have the mens rea for murder, their intoxication was a full defense. However they were found guilty of manslaughter as that is a basic intent offence.

  "A drunken intent is still an intent."
• Specific Intent Cases - 2/3

  Gallagher (1963)

  'Dutch Courage'. D bought a bottle of whiskey and a knife intending to kill his wife. He bought the whiskey to ensure he went through with the murder. He drank the whiskey and killed his knife with the knife and a hammer. D was found guilty as he had clearly formed the intention to kill before the drinking, drinking for Dutch Courage will mean there is no defense available for specific intent crimes.

  It is not an outright acquittal. The offence is downgraded s18 - s20. Murder to Manslaughter.
• Specific Intent Cases - 3/3

  AG Ref Lord Jennings

  "If the D is rendered so stupid by drink, that he doesn't know what he's doing."
• Basic Intent Offences

  • If D commits a BI crime, the defense is not available.

  Majewski (1977)

  D had taken a substantial quantity of drugs over a 48 hour period, then went to a pub and drank, getting into a fight with two others and the landlord. When the police arrived, he assaulted the arresting officers and later a police inspector. D claimed he had no recollection of the events due to intoxication.

  Intoxication was not a defense here as voluntarily becoming intoxicated is reckless and recklessness is enough to form MR for basic intent offences.
• Involuntary Intoxication

  • Spiked drinks and is unaware of intoxicant content
  • Soporific (sedative) drugs which had had an unusual effect (Hardie)
  • Prescribed drugs which have had an unusual effect (Bailey)
  • Intoxicants under Duress

  This can be a full defense but only if D lacked the mens rea. Note that this is not a good defense if the intoxicant just lowered the D's resistance to offending.
• Involuntary Intoxication Cases - 1/2

  Kingston (1994)

  D, who had a history of paedophilic tendencies, was invited to a flat by P and then drugged. P, who intended to blackmail D, then invited D to sexually abuse a 15 year old boy who had been drugged and was unconscious. D claimed that he had no recollection of the assault, and claimed that he had not been drugged he would have been able to resist his paedophilic urges.
• Involuntary Intoxication Cases - 2/2

  R v Allen (1988)

  D consumed some homemade wine. This had a much greater effect on him than anticipated. He committed sexual assaults and claimed he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing. He argued that he had not voluntarily placed himself in that condition as the wine was much stronger than he realised.
• Intoxication Mistake Cases - 1/3

  Lipman (1970)

  D and his girlfriend took a quantity of LSD (a hallucinogenic drug). During his "trip", D imagined he was being attacked by snakes at the centre of the earth and had to defend himself; in doing so, he actually killed V by cramming eight inches of sheet down her throat.
• Intoxication Mistake Cases - 2/3

  O'Grady (1987)

  After D and V, who was a friend, had been drinking heavily, they fell asleep in D's flat. D claimed that he awoke to find V hitting him. D picked up a glass ashtray and hit V with it, and went back to sleep.

  Lord Lane - "An intoxicated mistake as to the amount of force needed in self-defence was not a defence to a specific intent offence."
• Intoxication Mistake Cases - 3/3

  Hatton

  D had drunk over 20 pints of beer. He and another man (V) went back to D's flat. In the morning D claimed he found D dead from sledgehammer injuries. D said he could not remember what happened but he thought V had hit him with a five-foot-long stick and he defended from the attack. D was convicted of murder.

  A drunken mistake about the force required in self-defence was not a defence.
• Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

  • s76 states that D can use reasonable force for self-defence/defence of another/prevention of a crime
  • s76(5) goes on to say that D can't rely on a mistake due to intoxication that was voluntary induced on this issue