Intoxication

• 50% of violent crime involves alcohol/drugs
• • not a true defence
  • decisions driven largely by public policy
  • drunken/drugged intent is still intent (Beard, Kingston- disinhibition case of paedophilia, charged as a matter of public opinion)
  • only when D is incapable of forming intent can it be a defence (Sheehan & Moore)
• Key questions?

  • Is the offence committed basic or specific intent?
  • voluntary or involuntary?
  • did the drug have a different affect then intended?
• Voluntary or involuntary?

  • voluntary drinking is reckless- the specific/basic intent issue becomes relevant
  • involuntary has a complete defence if they don't have mens rea
  • even spiked, they may still be guilty if they have mens rea (Kingston)
  • voluntary drug taking may still afford a defence if the drug taken had an unusual effect (Hardie)
  • Dutch courage is not a defence (Gallagher)
• Majewski rules?


  Drunkenness can be a defence where D was at the time of the offence so drunk as to be incapable of forming the specific intent necessary for such crimes. As with Beard, self induced intoxication however gross or even producing a condition akin to automatism cannot excuse crimes of basic intent. With crimes of basic intent, the 'fault' element is supplied by D's recklessness in becoming intoxicated, this recklessness being substituted for the mens rea that the prosecution would otherwise have to prove.
• 1. Specific/ basic intent distinction(specific-basic intent dichotomy)


  Majewski defined the distinction as:

  • specific intent requires intention as mens rea and the defence is afforded because you can't prove intention if they were intoxicated
  • basic intent requires recklessness as mens rea and the defence isn't afforded as the drinking substitutes the recklessness needed as mens rea for the offence, however this creates an issue with contemporaneity as the actus reus and mens rea occur at different points in time
• Whilst a person committing a specific intent offence while intoxicated can afford the defence he can still be convicted of what?

  The lesser basic intent offence (known as the fa''-back offence). However lots of crimes don't have this eg theft
• Lipman?


  For the purposes of criminal responsibility it was held there was no reason to distinguish between the effect of drugs voluntarily taken and drunkenness voluntarily induced (D was convicted for UAM caused by drugs voluntarily taken that caused him to hallucinate snakes)
• If you're voluntarily drunk does it matter if D didn't know how strong the drink was?

  No- Allen
• Is alcohol dependency syndrome afforded the defence?


  Only if the alcoholism has damaged the brain causing gross impairment of D's judgement and emotional responses. The defence of diminished responsibility is afforded (Tandy)
• Does intoxication afford the defence of diminished responsibility?

  No, the only factor recognised for DR is the mental abnormality described by expert witnesses. Drink amounts to DR only when it causes damage to the brain or produces an irresistible craving so that consumption is involuntary (alcohol dependency)
• What did Wood initially suggest?

  Even alcoholics cannot truly involuntarily drink as giving in to a craving is not an involuntary act. This was held to be wrong on appeal as D was suffering alcohol dependency syndrome.
• The law now?

  • Brain damage by alcoholism= diminished responsibility, if it's simply intoxication then it can't (Tandy)
  • With DR and intoxication, D must prove that his alcoholism is alcohol dependency syndrome (recognised medical condition)
• Self defence, intoxication and mistake: If D makes a mistake due to intoxication, his defence relies on what mistake was made

  • Lipman- Mistaken fact from drugs, no intention to kill or cause GBH to a human (thought it was a snake). But no defence to a basic intent crime.
  • sober D genuinely, honestly believes they're about to be attacked so afforded SD if force is reasonable (Williams), even if unreasonable unless it'll make it less likely D was honest and genuine
  • mistaken belief of attack drunk= NO SD
  • use more force than reasonable because drunk= NO SD even in specific intent crimes
• When may a charge be reduced from specific intent to basic?


  When D is drunk and it's difficult to prove intention ie murder reduced to manslaughter, s18 to s20
• What Act says that D's voluntary drinking cannot provide a defence of self defence?

  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
• What exception is there to a defence of intoxicated mistake?

  In Jaggard & Dickinson an exception is made for criminal damage because D 's belief that V would not mind breaking in was an honest one
• What are the 2 ways of dealing with mens rea?

  1. Assumed drinking is the mens rea for the offence as this is reckless act- 1 judge referred to this as 'broadly equivalent culpability'. The problem is that drinking and the criminal act are not contemporaneous plus the act of drinking often bears no resemblance to the crime itself so it's absurd to suggest the drinking provides the mens rea for what could be a totally unrelated offence
  2. Once D is shown to be intoxicated, this then becomes irrelevant and P has to prove whether D would have the mens rea if sober
• Problems with Majewski?


  Can all crimes be classed as specific or basic intent? Most specific offences have a related fall back- but not in all offences. Lord Simon proposed an alternative view of these which was preferred in HEARD. Specific offences are those which have an ulterior purpose, a 'bolted on' intention eg arson with intent to endanger life. In Heard (and Lord Simon in Majewski), reference was made to 'ordinary intent' and 'purposive intent' and this approach was preferred. However the issue with Heard is that murder doesn't have a 'bolted on' element- therefore it's basic intent?
• Reform?


  Butler Commission proposed an offence of 'dangerous intoxication'. LC in 1993 proposed 'criminal intoxication'. LC 2009 proposed scrapping the specific basic intent classification and instead suggest a statutory list of 'integral fault elements' for the traditional specific intent crimes. All crimes for which recklessness is sufficient wouldn't allow intoxication as an offence (as in Majewski). If D was involuntarily intoxicated he would only be guilty if he has the necessary mens rea (confirming Kingston).