GDL - Intoxication Flashcards
(16 cards)
Is intoxication a defence?
Strictly speaking, it is not a defence
When should the judge direct the jury on intoxication?
whenever there is evidence such that a reasonable jury might conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that the accused did not form the mens rea
Q to ask to determine intoxication from R v Pordage
even if still capable while intoxicated, did the defendant form the mens rea?
Can the defendant argue that they would not have committed the offence when sober?
No, if the defendant forms the mens rea in their intoxicated state, it is no defence to plead that they would not have committed the offence when sober
“dangerous drugs”
Where it is common knowledge that a drug is liable to cause the taker to become aggressive, or to do dangerous or unpredictable things e.g. illegal drugs and alcohol
When can intoxication operate to negate the mens rea?
Involuntary intoxication e.g. ‘spiking’ or ‘lacing’;
Voluntary intoxication in good faith for purposes of medical treatment (eg sleeping pills)
Any crime where intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily
Specific intent crimes (eg murder)
Can the defendant argue involuntary intoxication if they were drinking alcohol but were mistaken as to the strength of the alcohol?
No
Where the intoxication is involuntary, the defence of intoxication may be available for
any offence (specific and basic intent)
voluntary intoxication is only available as a defence for crimes of
specific intent (eg murder, s.18)
Where D is voluntary intoxicated by dangerous drugs/alcohol and commits a less serious crime of basic intent, the defendant will be deemed reckless if they would have
foreseen the risk of harm when sober
Non-dangerous drugs
Where there is no knowledge that a drug is liable to cause the taker to become aggressive, or to do dangerous or unpredictable things e.g. a merely soporific or sedative drug
Why was the appeal allowed in R v Hardie where the defendant had caused criminal damage after taking valium?
there was no evidence that the appellant knew it would make him aggressive, incapable of appreciating risks to others or susceptible to other side effects, so as to make his taking it reckless
Normal person test under Asmelash
an intoxicated person is not precluded from using the defence. If D is addicted to drugs or alcohol this will be a characteristic given to the normal person but the normal person will still have normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint and be sober, Asmelash.
Can a defendant rely on self-defence if they were drunk?
If a defendant makes a drunken mistake as to the need to use self-defence, they cannot rely on that mistake
Intoxication and consent
if the defendant wrongly believed that V consented due to their intoxication, they can still raise consent as a defence (eg if the defendant honestly believes that an owner would consent to the damage eg graffiti)
abnormality of mental functioning
A state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human that a normal person would deem it abnormal
