Intoxication

• Voluntary intoxication

  The defendant of their own accord took drink or drugs.
• Key question number 1

  Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
• key question 2 - Was the crime a specific or basic intent crime?

  Specific intent crimes are those which require a mens rea of intention only.

  For example:

  Murder, theft and s18
• Basic Intent

  Crimes which require a mens rea of either intention/recklessness.

  For example:

  ABH
• Key question number 3

  Did the intoxication take away the mens rea?
• Kingston (1994)

  ’friends’ drugged his coffee.  Whilst intoxicated he assaulted a youth. At trial he said he would not have done it had he not been intoxicated. Court Held he could not use intoxication as a defence as drunken intent is still intent.

  Set the precedent that

  the intoxication must take away the mens rea to succeed as a defence.
• Involuntary intoxication

  e.g. spiked drinks

  Can be a complete defence to any crime

  (irrelevant of the mens rea – basic or specific intent)

  must show that the intoxication prevented the defendant forming the mens rea.
• Hardie (1985)

  Took his girlfriend’s valium.  This would normally be voluntary intoxication.  It was classed as involuntary because it had an unexpected side effect.

  He could use it as a complete defence as he was able to prove it took away the mens rea.
• Voluntary Intoxication depends on

  whether crime is specific or basic
• Basic intent crime: Majewski (1977)

  He went on a 24 hour drinking binge and was charged with basic intent crimes ABH and CD.

  Court held he could not use the defence of voluntary intoxication as a defence as they were basic intent crimes and he was reckless getting drunk.
• Specific intent crimes:

  
  

  • If the charge is murder and the voluntary intoxication took away the mens rea (intent) it will reduce the conviction to manslaughter.
  • If theft it can lead to an acquittal
• Specific intent crime - Lipman


  • L and girlfriend took LSD.  He thought he was being attacked by snakes and needed to defend himself. In doing so he suffocated his girlfriend by forcing a sheet down her throat.
  • He lacked mens rea due to the drugs and claimed intoxication.
  • As murder is a specific intent crime and he lacked the intent to kill due to the drugs the court reduced his conviction to manslaughter.
• Specific intent crime - Gallagher


  G wanted to kill his wife.

  He bought a knife and a bottle of whisky.

  Drank the whisky and killed his wife.

  In his defence he said he was so intoxicated he did not have the mens rea for murder. 

  The Court failed the defence stating he had the mens rea when he bought the knife and whisky so could not use the defence.
• Dutch Courage cases

  Dutch courage is where you get yourself intoxicated in order to pluck up the courage to commit the crime.

  The courts will not allow the defence in these cases as it does not protect the public.