Intoxication

Question 1

State the 2 things needed to be considered in order to assess whether D would be able to use Intoxication as a Defence.

Answer 1

1) Whether intoxication was voluntary/involuntary
2) Whether offence charged is one of specific or basic intent

Question 2

Define Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 2

• D chose to take an intoxicating substance
• Also occurs where D knows effect of taking prescribed drug will make them intoxicated

Question 3

Explain Voluntary Intoxication, when the offence charged is one of Specific Intent

Answer 3

• If D’s voluntarily intoxicated, could mean they didn’t form mens rea, due to intoxication
• Test set by Lord Birkenhead, in case: DPP v Beard
• More modern authority, case: R v Sheehan + More- says if D is so intoxicated that he’s not formed mens rea (intent) for offence, he’s not guilty- irrespective of whether they were incapable of doing so
• Case: R v Lipman- shows where there’s an alternative basic intent offence, D may be charged it’s both specific + basic intent offence- in this case, prosecution know they’ll get conviction for lesser offence id jury finds D didn’t form mens rea for murder

Question 4

State the Fall-Back Offences for Specific Intent Offences

Answer 4

• If charge is Murder, fall back offence: Manslaughter
• If charge is S.18 GBH with intent, fall back offence: S.20 GBH OAPA
• Where D has necessary Mens Rea despite intoxicated state, they’re still guilty of offence, as drunken intent is still intent- shown in case: A-G for NI v Gallagher

Question 5

Explain Voluntary Intoxication, when the offence is one of Basic Intent

Answer 5

• Voluntary Intoxication not a defence if offence is one of basic intent
• Becming intoxicated voluntarily is considered a reckless course of conduct + recklessness is enough to constitute necessary Mens Rea for basic intent offences
• If they didn’t know they’d get intoxicated with what they took they weren’t reckless + can use defence- Case: DPP v Majewski
• If D doesn’t realise strength of intoxicant, can still use defence- case: R v Allen

Question 6

Explain what Involuntary Intoxication covers.

Answer 6

• Being spiked
• Where prescribed drug has unexpected effect of making D intoxicated + D doesn’t realise effect

Question 7

Explain what may happen if D was Involuntarily Intoxicated

Answer 7

If D’s intoxicated through no fault of their own then:
1) Allowed to argue they didn’t form Mens Rea for specific or basic intent offence, but that
2) If prosecution prove they didn’t form Mens Rea, will be guilty even if they wouldn’t have committed it had they not have been involuntarily intoxicated- Case: R v Kingston
- Where D didn’t have necessary intention or not been reckless in getting intoxicated, won’t be guilty- Case: Hardie

Question 8

State + explain what the Intoxicated Mistake is.

Answer 8

• If D’s mistaken about key fact as they were intoxicated
• Depends on what mistake was about as to whether they have a defence or not
• Where mistake is about something which means D didn’t have Mens Rea for offence, then for Specific Intent Offence they have a defence
• But where offence is one of basic intent, then D has no defence

Question 9

State + explain what the Evidential Burden is, with regards to Intoxication.

Answer 9

• D’s required to raise fact of intoxication
• For judge to assess whether or not intoxication is sufficient for it to amount to legal defence- Case: R v Groark- appeal dismissed as didn’t raise defence at first instance