Intoxication

• Voluntary intoxication?

  • AO1- D has chosen to take drugs/drink, only a defence to specific intent crimes as it's difficult to prove intention which was decided with the Majewski rules
  • AO3- unfair that someone can 'get off' because they chose to drink
  • AO1- only a partial defence, D will be convicted on a fall back offence
  • AO3- fine for murder/manslaughter or s18/20 but not all crimes have a fall back offence eg theft, should drunk people be allowed to steal?
• Voluntary intoxication?

  • AO1- Cannot provide a defence for basic intent because getting drunk is a reckless act therefore the mens rea is present in the act of drinking
  • AO3- The recklessness here is for a completely different act, legal issue to contemporaneity because the actus reus and mens rea should be present at the same time. This legal problem has been overlooked due to public policy- we cannot allow people to get away with crime just because they're drunk (50% of all violent crime is done drunk)
• • AO1- Dutch courage drinking provides no defence (Gallagher).
  • AO3- rightly so
• Involuntary intoxication?

  • AO1- Being spiked. Complete defence as there is no mens rea.
  • AO3- Quite rightly however how involuntary drinking/drug taking is can be problematic
  • AO1- Taking a drug that has the opposite effect of that expected should afford a defence (Hardie). Drinking but being unaware of the strength of the drink wouldn't be classified as involuntary (Allen).
  • AO3- quite rightly
• Involuntary intoxication?

  • AO1- Even when spiked, if D still formed the mens rea they may still be convicted (Kingston)
  • AO3- This is a particularly difficult case as it was such a serious offence, again, public policy issues dictate that D can't be acquitted of something so serious, which seems somewhat unfair
• Involuntary intoxication?

  • AO1- A number of cases have revolved around the question as to whether D voluntarily took 'the first drink of the day' (Tandy), especially when D is an alcoholic. It was stated that a person always has a choice even if it's to give in to a craving in Wood.
  • AO3- This would mean there's no such thing as involuntary intoxication (unless it's being spiked). This needs clarification.
• • AO1- Generally intoxicated mistake is not a defence however there is the exception in Jaggard and Dickinson
  • AO3- this is problematic
• Therefor, there are a number of problems- the main ones being the voluntary/involuntary distinction and the specific/basic intent dichotomy, alongside public policy considerations
• Reform?

  • Offence of dangerous intoxication to cover low level crimes- public policy- how many of these would we have?
  • Voluntary intoxication to be a defence to all crimes- public policy
  • Law Commission Proposal 2009- remove the problematic specific/basic intent dichotomy. Intoxication to be a defence if there is an ulterior intention required eg arson with intent to endanger life
• Conclusion?

  Yes it's problematic. We have a drinking culture in the UK. The hospitality industry relies on it. Thus, there needs to be a balance struck between allowing drinking, with all the revenue that brings, and dealing effectively with its aftermath. This will be very difficult- but the fact that all reform proposals have so far been ignored means it's clearly not one of Governments priorities