Incapacity defence: Intoxication Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Source

A

Common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Which crimes is the defence available to?

A

The defence to all crimes which require mens rea (including murder), however it only results in a complete acquittal in limited circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Definition

A

Intoxication is described as a defence (excuse/justification). When raising their intoxication, D is saying that they could not form the required MR for the offence

Since one of the basic elements (MR) is missing they cannot be convicted

Can result in acquittal (rarely) or conviction of a lesser crime because D is incapable of forming MR.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

State and explain the two types of intoxication

A

Voluntary intoxication - occurs when a defendant consumes an intoxicant/intoxicating substance through choice

Involuntary intoxication - occurs when a defendant consumes an intoxicant involuntarily/ not through choice/unknowingly or if they take a prescription or soporific drug which has an unexpected effect on them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the four elements that need to be proved?

A

Element 1 - D has taken an intoxicant recognised by the court

Element 2 - D must be extremely intoxicated, so intoxicated that they cannot form MR of the offence

Element 3 - Was D’s intoxication involuntary?

Element 4 - Was D’s intoxication voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Element 1: The D has taken an intoxicant recognised by the court

A

1) Alcohol (Sheenan and Moore, Beard, Majewski, Allen, Eatch)

2) Illegal recreational drugs (Lipman)

3) Prescription or soporific (sleep inducing/calming/sedative) drugs which are unexpected; where D has not taken them recklessly (Hardie/Bailey)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Element 2: The defendant must be extremely intoxicated, so intoxicated that they cannot form MR of the offence

A
  • D must not be able to form any MR al all (Beard confirmed this)
  • D cannot rely on their intoxication as a defence, if they are still able to form
    any MR (Sheenan and Moore - judge said ‘a drunken intent is still an intention
  • Loosing your inhibitions through intoxication is not enough, there must be a complete absence of mens rea (Kingston - D was invol intoxicated by a business competitor who laced his coffee with a disinhibiting drug and invited him to abuse a teen) Kingston - HOL ‘drugged intent is still an intent’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Element 3: Involuntary intoxication

A

Usually a full defence to all types of criminal offences. But only if there is a complete absence of MR

Not intoxicated through choice

Courts have recognised that a defendant can be involuntary intoxicated
1. They became intoxicated through spiking/lacing (alcohol/drugs)

  1. They became intoxicated through taking prescription drugs (correctly) but has an adverse/unexpected reaction to them
  2. They became intoxicated by taking soporific drugs (Valium/anti-depressants/sleeping pills) for the right reasons but had an unexpected reaction to them (Hardie)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Element 4: Voluntary intoxication

A

It includes…
1. Where D has chosen to consume alcohol/illegal drugs…

  1. Where D has voluntarily consumed alcohol but did not know the strength of it - it is still voluntary and not involuntary intoxication (Allan)
  2. Where D drank for Dutch Courage (get courage to commit the offence) but was extremely intoxicated when they committed it (AG for NI v Gallagher)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Element 4: Voluntary intoxication (public policy)

A

Fall back will be applied and the defendant will instead be convicted of any related basic intent crime. D charged with murder who was extremely voluntarily intoxicated and could not form the MR, will be convicted of manslaughter instead

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

List 5 specific intent crimes

A

Murder
s18 (OAPA 1861)
Theft
Robbery
Burgalry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

List 5 basic intent crimes

A

Manslaughter
S20 and S47 Offences
Assault
Battery
Rape

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Reform for intoxication

A

The Butler Committee suggested creating a new crime of dangerous intoxication as part of the reform, however some argue that drunkenness should not be a defence and should only be addressed at sentencing. Because of Parliament’s lethargy, there is no push for reform.

Although taxes and the licencing sector have significant lobbying strength, alcohol still costs the NHS a lot of money. Critics argue that it would be difficult to draft an appropriate law and that it would be sufficient to continue with the current one. The judiciary hardly ever mentions that Parliament should take action if the legislation has to be changed.

In conclusion, it is likely that the legislation needs to be changed, although it may not be urgent and unlikely to happen in real life.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Evaluation: The rules are harsh

A

Some may argue that the rules of intoxication is perhaps harsh. By treating those who become inadvertently intoxicated (Allen) whose intention is to become dangerous and extremely antisocial. But on the other hand those who don’t know the strength or effect (Lipman) will open the floodgates as people will think that the more involuntary intoxicated you are, you will receive less blame.

  • No clear test for which are basic and specific intent crimes
  • These rules, especially needed in the 21st century are significant in order to protect society
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Evaluation: Public policy

A

Occasionally the law favours individuals over public policy. This is very rare but can happen.

EG Hardie - given the defence even though it was his girlfriends drugs that weren’t prescribed to him.

Against public policy and the law commission 2009 recommended this precedent. As it is unpopular and nor fit for purpose it gives out the wrong message

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Evaluation: Inconsistent

A

There are many arguments both for and against the Majewski rules on voluntary intoxication. The courts have consistently failed to provide a clear test to decide if a crime is one of specific or basic intent.

In the Majewski case, the Law Lords heard evidence from Lord Elwyn Jones, who stated that particular purpose crimes solely involved intent, but basic intent crimes also involved recklessness. Due to the lack of clarity, many contend that the law is unfit for purpose and ought to be changed.

More recently, the Court of Appeal stated in Heard (D rubbed penis on policeman’s thigh while highly voluntarily intoxicated) that a specific intent crime is one in which the offending has a purpose beyond merely performing the MR. Crimes are still categorised on an individual basis, nevertheless. There is no comparable fundamental intent criminal to theft; theft is a special intent crime. This implies that a defendant who stole while voluntarily intoxicated gets exonerated. This obviously leaves the law vulnerable to criticism and claims that it is unfair, contradictory, unreasonable, and unfit forpurpose.

17
Q

Evaluation: The law does not always treat voluntary intoxication differently to involuntary

A

This is a problem because;
- Kingston seems much less blameworthy then Gallager, and it may even be that Kingston had no control over his actions due to the intoxication and so lacked voluntary actus reus but because intoxication focuses on the mens rea, the defence failed.
- This makes it pointless to distinguish between types of intoxication for specific intent crimes.

However this can be positive because;
- If D still had the mens rea despite intoxication the intoxication is not really relevant anyway and so it should not matter how they were intoxicated.

18
Q

Evaluation: Some specific intent crimes do not have related basic intent crimes to reduce to

A

In lipman, intoxication stopped D having the mens rea for murder, but D could still be guilty of involuntary manslaughter because it was a basic intent crime with the same actus reus as murder.
But in theft, if D lacks the mens rea there is no basic intent crime with the same actus reus and so D would have to be totally acquitted.