Defences (Intoxication) Flashcards
What is Intoxication in legal terms?
A factor which affects the D’s ability to form the Men’s Rea
What is voluntary intoxication?
The D chooses to become intoxicated
Alcohol
Drugs
Solvents
What can voluntary intoxication be broken up into?
Specific intent crimes
Requires intention to commit one part of the Actus Reus of the crime (murder)
Basic internet crimes
Recklessness is sufficient whether that be ABH or Assault
Do basic internet crimes allow for the D to obtain a defence?
(Case law)
No defence
DPP V Majewski 1977
D voluntarily consumed a large amount of amphetamines, tranquillisers and alcohol.
He got involved in a pub fight and head-butted the landlord, punched a customer, and kicked a police office
His evidence was that “He did not know what he was doing”
(Raised lack of “Men’s Rea”)
Lord Elwyn Jones’s stated:
“His course of conduct in reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition… supplies the evidence of men’s Rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent”
“It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary men’s rea in assault cases”
Do basic internet crimes allow for the D to obtain a defence?
(Case Law No.2)
R V LipMan (1970)
The defendant and girlfriend both took LSD.
The defendant experienced hallucinations
He thought he was descending to the centre of the earth and wrestling servants.
His girlfriend was found dead with eight centimetres of bedsheets stuffed in her mouth
HELD:
D’s Voluntary intoxication by taking drugs was reckless
Sufficient men’s Rea for unlawful act manslaughter
To summarise Basic Intent crimes
No defence
Defendant is reckless to become intoxicated
Voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes
D too intoxicated to from intention: (R V Pordage 1975)
Liability is reduced to basic intent equivalent of the crime which he is charged
Example
Offence: Murder
Defence: Intoxication
Reduced to: Manslaughter
Voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes
Burden of proof to establish necessary men’s Rea is on?
The prosecution
Voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes
R V Sheehan & Moore (1975)
D’s had been drinking.
They set fire to V’s house, but he escaped
The first D poured petrol on the V and set him alight, killing him
The first D argued at trial that he was substantially affected by the drink and had no recollection of the events, and so lack the men’s Rea for murder
HELD:
He was not able to form men’s Rea for murder.
His conviction was quashed and replaced with a conviction for manslaughter
Voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes
A-G For NI V Gallagher (1963)
D was a psychopath who’s aggressive outbursts were worsened by drink.
On his release from a mental hospital, he brought a knife, intending to kill his wife with it, and a bottle of whiskey.
He knew the whiskey would make him violent to a fatal degree.
He attacked her with a knife and hammer and killed her.
Held:
D was guilty for murder
Voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes
A-G For NI V Gallagher (1963)
Lord Denning’s statement:
“A psychopath who goes out intending to kill, knowing it is wrong and does kill, cannot escape the consequences by making himself drunk before doing it”
Specific intent crimes summarised
Intention required
D too intoxicated to form intention: Liability reduced to basic intent equivalent of the crime
D has men’s Rea before becoming intoxicated = No defence
Involuntary intoxication?
(Hint: don’t think of the meaning, think of acquittal)
The D must be acquitted
As long as the D does not have the men’s Rea first
Involuntary intoxication?
R V Hardie (1985)
The D was going through a breakup with his partner
D took several Valium pills to calm his nerves
He set fire to the flat in which he and his partner lived.
He could remember nothing about it afterwards
D was convicted of aggravated criminal damage and appealed
Held:
His intoxication should be regarded as involuntary, because the effect of the drug, which was a sedative, was unexpected.
D’s conviction was quashed
Involuntary intoxication?
R V Kingston (1994)
D had abusive tendencies.
His drink was laced with a sedative.
After this he abused the V.
Held:
He was guilty of the offence.
A drugged intention was still an intention; he knew what he was going
