Intoxication

• Intoxication is the inability to form mens rea due to alcohol, drugs or solvents
• Voluntary intoxication is where D has brought about their own intoxication
• Voluntary: Basic intent crimes will always fail as the D has the MR due to being reckless as to becoming intoxicated

  • DPP v Majewski - 'Reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea'
• Voluntary: Specific intent crimes - intoxication may form a defence if it prevents the D from forming intention, here the fall back principle will apply and D will be convicted of a lesser charge (Sheehan and Moore)
• Dutch courage - D deliberately drinks in order to have courage to commit an offence, this always fails and will never be a defence

  • AG v Gallagher
• Involuntary intoxication is where the D takes an intoxicating substance but is unaware of it, or has unwanted side effects

  • This is available for both specific and basic intent crimes
  • It is a full defence
• The test for involuntary intoxication is whether the D has the necessary MR at the time of the offence?
• It is voluntary intoxication if D thought they were drinking a drink with a lower alcohol percentage than they actually were - Allen
• • Prescribed drugs - D takes a prescribed drug from a doctor and becomes intoxicated, the defence will succeed (Bailey)
• Soporific drugs - Calming drugs such as sedatives make a person sleepy or relaxed (Hardie)
• Laced drinks - D is unaware they are consuming an intoxicant so the defence succeeds, but they must lack the necessary MR (Kingston)
• Intoxication and other defences:

  • Mistake - an intoxicated mistake is not a defence to basic intent, and only assists a specific intent crime if the D can show they did not form the MR (Fotheringham)
  • Self defence - s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that D will never have a defence to a basic or specific intent crime if the drunken mistake is about self-defence (O'Grady)