Voluntary intoxication Flashcards
(30 cards)
Is there a defence for voluntary intoxication?
Voluntary intoxication has never been recognised as a general defence, at common law or via statute. ‘It would be inimical to the safety of all of us if the judges announced that anyone could gain exemption from the criminal law by getting drunk’ (Glanville Williams (1983))
What did Lord Hughes say in Heard
It does not matter where D is voluntarily intoxicated that when he was drunk he: was disinhibited and did something he would not have done when sober; or that he did not remember it afterwards. Neither of these destroy the intentional character. ‘A drunken intent is still an intent
Facts of Heard
D who while drunk had rubbed his penis against the leg of a police officer. Hughes pointed out, this would have not have been something he would have done if sober, and the effect is that don’t remember afterwards. Neither destroys the intentional character of the touching at the time. A drunken intent, is still an intent.
Case that held the mere fact of intoxication does not prove that lacks intention
R v White: D had been drinking, and she provoked a confrontation between her friends and two other men. One of whom was killed. Shown that D had stepped on V’s throat while he was on the ground, the CA rightly so, held that the mere fact she had been drinking provided no evidence that she lacked the intention for murder. She was convicted.
Where does the problem arise with voluntary intoxication
Problems arises only if D, who is voluntarily intoxicated, claims NOT that his intoxication is a ‘defence’, but rather that he should be excused under the normal rules of culpability expressed by AR + MR – D.
What is the rule for SIC
It was decided that the ‘normal rules’ apply to crimes requiring proof of specific intent such as murder. The P must prove in the normal way that D acted voluntarily and with the required intent. This was seen as a merciful relaxation of the older common law rule that D was responsible for his actions while voluntarily intoxicated.
What is the exception for the rule for SIC
Relates to ‘Dutch Courage’, where D becomes intoxicated in order to commit the SIC offence. In such cases, D’s blameworthy conduct is not merely her choice to become voluntarily intoxicated, but her choice to do so in order to commit the offence.
Case for Dutch courage
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher: D decided to kill his wife. D drank most of a bottle of whisky and then did so. D claimed that, due to his intoxication, he lacked the MR for murder as a SIC.
What was held in AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Contrary to the CA, the HL held that the trial judge had correctly focused on D’s MR. Where D becomes intoxicated in order to kill whilst in that state, it seems correct that D should be liable for murder even if she lacked the MR at the moment she caused death due to intoxication. He cannot say that he got himself into such a stupid state that he was incapable of an intent to kill”
What can the prosecution do when a defence of intoxication is successful for a SIC
Fall back principle e.g. Sheehan & Moore (killed tramp) but this will not work for theft
What is the rule for BIC
Majewski rule
What happened in Majewski
D was convicted of various assaults following a fight in a pub. He had consumed drugs and alcohol and claimed to have ‘blanked out’. The trial judge directed the jury to disregard intoxication and D was convicted.
What did the defence argue I Majewski
- The argument on appeal was based on logic that if, following Beard, the normal rules applied to proof of ‘specific intent’ on a charge such as murder, then the same must logically also apply on a charge of assault to show that D lacked intent or recklessness or that he was not acting voluntarily. The rule that intoxication can negative culpability should not be confined to ‘specific intent’ offences but should apply to all fault requirements.
What did the HL ultimately decide in Majewski
The HL acknowledged that if logic was the only driving factor D had a valid argument and he should not be punished. But this would be contrary to public policy which prevails to protect society from the dangerous effects of intoxicants. To allow a defence would threaten public order
His course of conduct in reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition in my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, or guilty mind, certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in an assault case
What is moral equivalence
Where D’s state of mind is equivalent to having MR. - An advantage of the ‘moral equivalence’ explanation is that it allows D to be found not to be reckless if he would not have seen the risk if sober: in that case his intoxication was not causative of the outcome.
Case for moral equivalence which is probably a better test
Richardson where ‘horseplay’ by drunken students ended when one was tipped over a balcony and sustained serious injuries. D was charged with a s 20 offence. The CA held that the correct direction as to the foresight to be proved for a s.20 OAPA 1861 offence would have been that D either realised that V might slip or be dropped and sustain harm or that he would have realised that had he not been drinking. This seem better in principle than simply equating intoxication with recklessness in all cases.
What is the situation where D voluntarily takes a non-dangerous intoxicant?
To say that V has voluntarily taken an intoxicating substance is not necessarily to say that D has acted in a blameworthy manner. Was the drug dangerous? It is dangerous where it is commonly known in society, or personally known to D, to cause unpredictability and/or aggression.
Does the Majewski rules apply to non-dangerous intoxicants
No, because , the rules were constructed for drugs and alcohol which we all know to be dangerous in the sense that make us do dangerous or unpredictable things.
When will intoxication be viewed as non-dangeorus
When D takes a drug known to have a soporific/sedative effect R v hardie
Facts of R v Hardie:
D took 5 Valium tablets to calm himself after being told to leave the house by his partner. D retuned, intoxicated by the tablets, and set fire to a wardrobe in the house. D was charged with arson with intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life.
What was decided in R v Hardie
The HL allowed the appeal and held that Valium was not a dangerous drug and D had no reason to believe it would lead to the actions it caused. Where the intoxicant is non-dangerous in the sense that it is not commonly known to be dangerous by D, even where it results in potentially criminal harms, there will be no liability.
Therefore, from Hardie what is the correct question to ask
if D lacked the mens rea for the offence through intoxication, he was reckless in taking the Valium.
What happened in R v Bailey
a diabetic, claimed to be acting involuntarily under the influence of insulin he had taken incorrectly (by failing to combine with food).
Why was it held that. D could still be at fault in a Bailey type situation
But D may still be ‘at fault’, therefore: In this type of case the issue in a basic intent crime (here s.20) would be whether D was reckless in the sense that he realised the risk of dangerous or unpredictable conduct resulting from the way in which he misused the substance.
