Intoxication

Question 1

Intoxication PQ structure

Answer 1

1. Identify the offence
2. Was D involuntarily intoxicated = if so, D is entitled to acquittal if the involved intoxicant meant that he lacked MR
3. If voluntarily intoxicated:
   - Was the offence one of specific intent? If so, D entitled to acquittal if he lacks mens rea
   - Was the offence one of basic intent? If so, D convicted by his prior fault in voluntarily reducing his capacity, unless:
4. What was the drug D voluntarily consumed?
   - If one that was “not a dangerous drug” – D is not guilty unless subjectively reckless as to aggression/unpredictability by taking that drug
   - If drug is one commonly known to create states of unpredictability and aggression, D is guilty for crimes of basic intent
   = Involuntary intoxication means that D would be acquitted whether the crime is one of specific or basic intent

Question 2

Lacking MR

Answer 2

• Intoxication is not a defence, it is evidence to support denial of MR
• A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’ = R v Sheehan and Moore
• R v Kingston = drugged paedophile, CoA quashed conviction as induced by P, whilst the HoL said CoA was wrong, as a drunken intent is still an intent, instead, it should be taken into account in sentencing, as less blameworthy
• AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher = intended to kill wife, but became drunk, to get the courage to complete it, so a drunken intent is still an intent

Question 3

Involuntary intoxication - cases where is it did not cause the MR

Answer 3

• Was the intoxication the cause of the MR? = Richardson and Irwin – D argued that they would have done the same thing, had they been sober, as there was consent, so intoxication has not created a state of culpable mens rea
• Knowingly taking a drug but which was of higher potency than you realised is not involuntary intoxication – Allen = as you know that you are taking an intoxicant

Question 4

Involuntary intoxication - was D intoxicated at the time of the offence?

Answer 4

• Harris = went on a binge, then sober, but the immense amount caused a psychotic episode, which resulted in the offence, but this is an insanity case, even if the mental illness arose from intoxication
• Taj = taken substances for numerous days, sees a man repairing a car believing it to be a terrorist attack – the court didn’t want D to plead self-defence, so found that if recently intoxicated, the short-term effects could be shown to have triggered the episode

Question 5

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 5

• Leading case is DPP v Majewski:
• RULE = Where D does not form the MR of an offence due to voluntary intoxication, D cannot be convicted of any crime requiring specific intent, but will instead be convicted of the corresponding crime of basic intent
  = CANNOT be convicted of specific intent for voluntary intoxication

Question 6

Crimes of basic and specific intent - interpretations

Answer 6

1. Can the predominant MR element of the offence be satisfied by recklessness, is so, then it is a crime of basic intent
2. Specific intent crimes are those where the mens rea relates to more than the element of conduct in the actus reus [vs. Murder doesn’t have an ulterior motive and is a specific intent offence]

Question 7

Basic and specific intention crimes

Answer 7

• SOA = basic
• Criminal damage = basic – as reckless, unless charged as intent
• OAPA = all basic intent but s.18 is specific
• Murder = specific
• Manslaughter = basic
• Theft = specific
• Complicity = specific
  = in a PQ, if D is going to be acquitted, as a specific intent, then drop down, such as if going to be acquitted of murder, drop down to manslaughter

Question 8

Dangerous and non-dangerous drugs

Answer 8

• R v Lipman = LSD trip delusion, strangled V – no distinction between the effect of drugs compared to alcohol, as basic intent offence, guilty
• Bailey = D took insulin, but did not eat, so as he took a drug, this is not insanity, as external, not guilty by either s.18 [specific intent and voluntary intoxication] and s.20 [D argued to be not reckless as to unpredictability], so no MR for either
• R v Hardie = voluntary intoxication as taken someone else’s Valium, however, the court held that as a non-dangerous as it causes people to sleep, so it is not known to create this reaction, so ask did D have the MR at the time of the MR at the time of the offence

Question 9

Essay Questions
Advanatges and Disadvantages of intoxication

Answer 9

• basic and specific intent offences confusing as no method to distinguish the two
• CANNOT be convicted of specific intent for voluntary intoxication - so drop down from murder to manslaughter, but there is no lesser offence to drop down to for theft
• Law Comm. recommend criminal intoxication offence