Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Law: Intoxication, SPECIFIC INTENT (intention) CRIMES (Intoxication is a…
Law: Intoxication
- where accused has willingly become intoxicated
- for obvious public policy reasons, we can't allow intoxication to excuse all criminal behaviour, hence it's a defence that can only be used in very restricted circumstances.
summary:
- D was regular user of cannabis
- watched violent video game
- later that night D went to neighbours house & attacked her & her partner with knife
- when arrested, D called his mother & threatened suicide
- he claimed he blacked out & had no recollection
- psychiatric evidence showed he could have suffered a brief psychotic episode induced by consumption of cannabis & may have been acting out role of character in the game.
- D was convicted of attempted murder as his state of mind was caused by voluntary intoxication & therefore wasn't insanity (this case was considered under automatism)
- Voluntary intoxication and charge reduction
- despite voluntary intoxication being defence to specific intent crimes, it won't always lead to an acquittal
- a conviction may simply be reduced to a lesser offence for which involuntary intoxication is no defence.
- e.g. s 18 specific intent assault may be reduced to a basic intent s 20 (see Brown and Stratton 1998)
- murder may be reduced to involuntary manslaughter (see Lipman 1970)
- the intoxication must completely negate the mens rea (DPP v Beard 1920)
- accused must've been so intoxicated that he had no intention
- defence will fail if it reduced inhibitions but he still knew what he was doing
- in Sheehan 1975 it was said that "drunken intent was still intent"
- Kingston 1994 - accused indecently assaulted 15-yr-old boy but claimed he wouldn't have done if he'd not been intoxicated. his defence was rejected because he admitted that despite his inhibitions reduced, he still knew what he was doing.
- intoxication is no defence if taken for "Dutch Courage"
- in A.G Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963 the accused bought & drank bottle whisky in order to give himself the nerve to stab his wife - intoxication was no defence.
- voluntary intoxication is never a defence to crimes of basic intent but it may be a defence to crimes of specific intent
- simplest (but not only way) way of distinguishing between basic and specific intent is that Crimes of specific intent are those where the only mens rea is intention
- leading authority in this is now DPP v Majewski 1977 House of Lords Case after 24 hr drug & alcohol binge, accused attacked police officer & smashed some windows. HoL ruled that he could not use intoxication as a defence to the s.47/s.20 assault or to criminal damage because these offences have a mens rea of recklessness. therefore they're crimes of basic intent for which voluntary intoxication is no defence. if Majewski was charged with a s.18 assault he could've used intoxication as a defence because its a crime of specific intent
- limits on use of involuntary intoxication
- no defence if the accused still has some mens rea
~ this is why Kingston 1994 could not use the defence. His food & drink had been spiked by drugs by a business rival as part of a set up whereby he was to be tempted to have sex with a 15 yr old boy. Kingston said he wouldn't have done it had he not been intoxicated but he admitted he still knew what he was doing. Involuntary intoxication was no defence.
-
- approach in Majewski is not without its problems. e.g. if D falsely thinks because he is intoxicated, that he is being attacked by v and as result harms v can he rely on intoxication to support a defence such as mistake or self defence?
~ in this case, D is entitled to defend themselves by using force that is proportionate to the danger which they genuinely, even though mistakenly, believe to exist.
- mistake is a separate defence
- those who make a mistake due to voluntary intoxication cannot use mistake as a defence. they can try to use intoxication as a defence but there are many limits on this
- Fotheringham 1988
- O'Grady 1987
- Hatton 2005
(refer to notes)
- intoxication can occur through alcohol and drugs
- if accused has no mens rea because of his intoxication he may have a defence
- if intoxication is voluntary then it may be a defence to some offences but not others. if intoxication is involuntary then it may be defence to all crimes
- where accused becomes intoxicated by no fault of his own
- examples of when intoxication is involuntary
- where drink/drugs are forced upon the accused
- where his food/drink is spiked
- where he mistakenly thinks that he is taking a non-intoxication drink/drug (e.g. thinks he has glass of orange juice but it is alcopops)
- when drugs prescribed have an unexpected effect
- where soporific drugs/sedatives unexpectedly cause aggressive behaviour. this exception comes from the case of Hardie 1985
-
-
- murder
- S18
- Theft/burglary/Robbery
- attempt
- involuntary manslaughter
- S18
- S47/S20/common assault
- criminal damage
-