Defences: Intoxication

Question 1

What is the defence of intoxication?

Answer 1

Intoxication is a general defence which means it is available to almost any crime.

Two different forms:

1. A way to negate the mens rea of an offence; or
2. An influencing factor on another legal principle/ defence

Question 2

First form of intoxication: How does intoxication work to negate the mens rea?

Answer 2

• where the intoxication is caused by drink or drugs taken involuntarily - available for both specific and basic intent crimes.
• where the intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily, but in bona fide pursuance of medical treatment.
• where the intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily.
• In crimes where a specific intent is required.

Question 3

What happens after determining if the defendant formed the mens rea even though they were intoxicated?

Answer 3

If yes:
a drunken intent is still intent, D will be criminally liable.

If no:
D lacks the mens rea and will be acquitted

Where D is voluntary intoxicated by dangerous drugs/ alcohol and commits a less serious crime of basic intent they will be deemed reckless if they would have formed the MR if sober.

Question 4

Second form of intoxication: how does intoxication form an influencing factor on another legal principle or defence?

Answer 4

1. Self-defence:
   D cannot rely on a drunken mistake.

2- Loss of control and diminished responsibility:
can still be pleaded if D was intoxicated but it does impact legal analysis.

3- Consent:
If the jury are satisfied that V consented to the accidental infliction of injury or D (even wrongly) believed that V consented (due to their intoxication),
D may have a defence.

4- Statutory defences:
Allow for an honest belief, D will be able to use the defence even if their belief is due to voluntary intoxication.

Question 5

What is the difference between basic and specific intent crimes?

Answer 5

*Basic intent offence:

‘Would D have formed the mens rea sober?’
D could be convicted on the basis of recklessness as to the consequences, or where no foresight as to the consequences is required.
(ex; battery, unlawful/gross neg manslaughter)

*Specific intent offences:
(possible defences available)

Where intention was the only form of mens rea available, i.e. where recklessness was insufficient
(ex; murder, s18 GBH. theft etc..)

Question 6

What is the difference between dangerous and non dangerous drugs?

Answer 6

1. Dangerous drugs-
   LEADS TO; specific or basic intent

Cause the taker to become aggressive, or to do dangerous or unpredictable things.

2. Non-dangerous drugs-
   LEADS TO possible defence

Where there is no such common knowledge, e.g. a merely sedative drug.
The defence of intoxication might be available if D did not form the necessary mens rea.