intoxication evaluation

• Intoxication


  A common law defence where the defendant is unable to form the mens rea of an offence due to being under the influence of an intoxicating substance
• Types of intoxication


  • Voluntary
  • Involuntary
• Voluntary intoxication


  When the defendant agrees to having the intoxicating substance
• Voluntary intoxication


  Can negate mens rea for specific intent crimes (those with intention), leading to a fallback
• Voluntary intoxication is not a defence for crimes of basic intent
• Involuntary intoxication


  When the defendant takes the intoxicants without a choice
• Involuntary intoxication is a complete defence, the defendant will be acquitted if not guilty
• Involuntary intoxication


  • Prescribed medicine has been taken, but adverse effects have been suffered by the D, causing them to commit an offence
• Intoxication defence cannot be applied if the D has any awareness of being intoxicated
• Identifying substances as legal or illegal

  Unfair as all substances are treated the same whether the intoxicants are legal or illegal
• Comparing prescribed medicine to recreational intoxicants

  Unfair as these types of intoxicants are used for different purposes
• Protecting medical professionals and wider society

  The standard of treating all intoxicants the same provides clarity on intoxicants advised by doctors, or those who would like to abuse it and use it as an excuse
• No fixed level of intoxication

  Confusing for the defendant or the claimant, as the judge will be provided with the most power to decide whether or not the defendant was too intoxicated or not to form a relative mens rea
• Ambiguity of knowing if the defendant was able to form the mens rea

  Can create anxiety to a victim of a specific intent crime as substantial evidence will need to be put forward to the judge to be able to find the defendant guilty
• The case of R v Lipman provides a confusing approach to this area of intoxication
• Spiked alcoholic drinks


  The defendant will be held liable as the effect of alcohol alone varies from person-to-person
• The principle is excluded for non-alcoholic drinks as the defendant would not be guilty of a criminal offence if they had been spiked
• The principle of spiked alcoholic drinks

  Needs to be reformed, as the consequential acts of the defendant would not have been carried out just from drink, if they had also been drugged
• The legal doctrine of situations regarding Dutch courage

  Fair as it is clear that the defendant had the relevant mens rea to commit a specific intent crime
• The case of Gallagher illustrates the fairness of the principle of Dutch courage
• Relying on case law for Dutch courage

  Can be unreliable and provide detrimental impacts to the claimant as the defendant may claim to have other personal problems
• The rules set out for Dutch courage

  Fair as the defence should not be used in situations whereby the defendant had the intent to commit a specific intent crime and using intoxicants to provide the ego boost for them to commit it
• Parliament should create an objective test to sophisticate the law on Dutch courage and reduce the chance of another precedent overturning this principle