Intoxication Knowledge Summary

• Definition:

  Consumption of alcohol, drugs or another noxious substance. It is when the D could not form the mens rea for the offence committed.
• 1. Legally intoxicated or Merely Drunk

  • Legally intoxicated is acting as an automaton without a conscious thought (so cannot from the mens rea of the offence)
  • Merely Drunk - the fact that alcohol or drugs remove inhibitions and D would not have done the act if sober is not enough (Heard)
  • A drunken intent is still intent (R v Sheehan and Moore).
• 2. Voluntary Intoxication - D has taken the alcohol/drugs by choice and had free will
• Voluntary intoxication + specific intent crime (mr is intention only e.g. s.18, murder, theft, robbery, burglary)

  • If D so drunk they were incapable of forming the intent required = no defence as intention not proven (Beard)
  • If D could form the mens rea at some point = no defence (R v Coley)
  • For public policy reasons, to avoid the D being acquitted, the courts will look for a similar, lesser, basic-intent offence (Lipman). This means D will be convicted under the rule in R v Majewski. If no lesser basic intent crime, then D will be acquitted.
• voluntary intoxication + basic intent crime (m/r includes recklessness)

  • No defece
  • Taking alcohol or drugs is a reckless course fo conduct so enoguh to prove mens rea under R v Majewski,
  • This means intoxication is never a defence to basic intent offence such as: assault, battery, s.47, s.20, UAM, GNM
• Strength of intoxicant - If D claims they did not know they strength of the alcohol, this is not a defence and will be classed as voluntary intoxication (R v Allen).

  Dutch Courage - D has voluntarily and deliberately got drunk to enable them to commit the offence = no defence (A-G for NL v Gallagher)
• 3. Involuntary intoxication - didn't take alcohol or drugs by free will e.g. being spiked, tsking prescription drugs but having an adverse reaction; R v Hardie

  • D has a defence for their actions
  • However, if have the mens rea then no defence; R v Kingston.
• 4. Mistake and Intoxication - if D makes a mistake whilst intoxicated = no defence (R v O'Grady)
• 5. Outcome - if successful, acquitted. Not successful - convicted.