Intoxication Evaluation

• There does not appear to be any urgent push for reform from the Law Commission. 


  They last suggested change in 2009.
• A 'fallback' offence 


  is a lesser offence for the same action.

  • Example: Murder -> Manslaughter.
  • Case Example: Lipman lacked the mens rea for murder and was convicted of manslaughter instead.
• Intoxication Impact:

  • If intoxication removes mens rea, conviction may be reduced to the fallback offence.
  • If no fallback offence exists (e.g., theft), intoxication could be a complete defence.
• • Fairness Concern:

  • Voluntary intoxication can fully defend theft but only reduce murder to manslaughter, which seems inconsistent.
• Majewski


  unsuccessful as he was charged with basic intent crimes and the court stated that as the mens rea could be recklessness the defence should not be allowed as the person was reckless in getting intoxicated in the first place.

  They think it would be unfair on the victim and society to allow intoxication as a defence where they got themselves intoxicated and committed offences.

  Could be unfair on Majewski as at the time of the offence he was unable to form the mens rea.
• Gallagher

  court denied him the defence as he deliberately got drunk to give him the courage to kill his wife.

  This seems to be a morally correct decision as he specifically got drunk to give himself the courage to kill his wife. 

  Had he been able to use the defence this would not have provided justice for the victim as his intention all along was to kill his wife.
• Kingston’s case

  seems harsh as he was involuntarily intoxicated yet as he knew what he was doing the defence failed (drunken intent is still intent). Even the Court of Appeal thought he was entitled to the defence.

  Compare this to Hardie who was allowed to claim involuntary intoxication which led to his acquittal even though he had taken someone else’s prescribed medication.