Intoxication Essay Model Answer

• Intoxication is where the defendant has consumed alcohol, drugs or another noxious substance. It is a legal term and is when the defendant could not form the mens rea for the offence committed.
• The first question is whether the defendant is legally intoxicated which means they are in a state of automatism and cannot form the necessary mens rea for the offence or whether they are merely drunk (where a D may do something they wouldn't do sober BUT they know they are doing it), R v Heard. A drunken intent is still intent, R v Sheehan and Moore.
• The next issue to determine is whether the intoxication has been caused voluntarily or involuntarily. If there is any doubt, it is a question of fact for the jury to decide; R v Eatch. Voluntary intoxication occurs when the defendant chooses to take alcohol, drugs or another intoxicating substance. It is only a potential defence to specific intent crimes (where the mens rea is intention only), DPP v Beard.
• If the defendant has been voluntarily intoxicated and committed a specific intent crime then the test originally came from DPP v Beard where Lord Birkenhead set out the following rule:

  'if he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved.'
• However, as illustrated initially in R v Sheehan and Moore, the relevant question was 'whether the defendants had formed the mens rea. A drunken intent it still intent.' Therefore, if a defendant commits a SI crime and could form the mens rea then the defence is unavailable (confirmed in R v Coley).
• In essence, if a defendant commits a SI crime and could not form the mens rea the defence is available and there are 2 possible outcomes:

  i. If the offence has a lower basic intent crime version then the charge will be lowered to the basic intent crime version and the defence will not be available as seen in R v Lipman.
• ii. Alternatively, if the offence is without a basic intent version and couldn't form the mens rea, then they will be acquitted, as there is no basic intent offence to reduce this down to. This means that for certain specific intent offences, voluntary intoxication is a complete defence.
• If a defendant has consumed alcohol or drugs for 'dutch courage' then the defence will be rejected as the d has formed the mens rea before becoming intoxicated and in order to enable them to carry out the offence; Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.
• Intoxication is not a defence to basic intent crimes (which have a mens rea of intention or recklessness), DPP v Majewski as the reckless behaviour of becoming voluntarily intoxicated is evidence of the necessary recklessness that the prosecution must prove as being voluntarily intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct. However, in Richardson and Irwin, the COA held that the jury should consider whether the defendant would have realised the risk if they had not been drinking. The mere fact that they are intoxicated does not automatically make the defendants guilty.
• Involuntary intoxication occurs when a defendant does not know that they have taken a drink/drugs that will intoxicate them. It can also include situations where a defendant has taken a prescribed drug but had an unexpected effect as seen in R v Hardie.
• If the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated and did not have the mens rea for the crime then they will be acquitted. However, if the D was involuntarily intoxicated and did have the mens rea for offence then the defence will fail; R v Kingston.
• If the defendant is successful, they will be acquitted and if not, then they will be convicted (apply to defence given if stated to).