Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Mental Capacity Defences- Intoxication - Coggle Diagram
Mental Capacity Defences- Intoxication
Mental capacity defences are used when the D does not have the mental state to fulfil the mens rea.
Intoxication-**
D commits a crime/breaks the law whilst using an intoxicating substance. E.g drink, drugs and solvent**
The requirements for the defence of intoxication to be satisfied is:
Was the crime one of basic intent or specific intent?
Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
Basic Intent and Specific Intent crimes:
Basic intent crimes
are crimes which include recklessness as part of the mens rea. E.g Assault, battery & GBH s.20
Specific intent crimes
are crimes which include intention ONLY as part of the mens rea. Murder, robbery & theft. GBH/wounding s.18
Involuntary and Voluntary intoxication:
Involuntary intoxication
is when the D is unaware that they have taken a intoxicating substance e.g drink being spiked or laced or D is unaware of a substance's intoxicating side effects.
Voluntary intoxication
is where the D knowingly takes an intoxicating substance. Alcohol or drugs.
Can intoxication be used?
Voluntary intoxication + specific intent crime
= yes if no intention has been formed. No if intent was formed before or after intoxication.
Voluntary intoxication + basic intent crime=
No- recklessness of getting drunk satisfies the mens rea. (Intoxication is reckless behaviour) Court should ask D if he would of realised the risk if sober. Unless it was past intoxication leading to dependancy or long-term impacts.
Involuntary intoxication + specific intent crime=
No if drunken intent is present but yes if no intention has been formed.
Involuntary intoxication + basic intent crime=
Yes as there is no reckless behaviour present.
VI + SI cases:
R v Gallegher:
D wanted to murder his wife but had gotten intoxicated in order to give him 'dutch courage' to carry out the murder.
Outcome: Defence not allowed as the
intent was formed before the intoxication.
R v Coley
: D had gotten intoxication which caused him to have a psychotic episode which resulted in him stabbing his neighour.
Outcome:
Guilty intoxicated intent is still intent.
VI+BI cases:
Defence is not allowed. Getting intoxicated is reckless behaviour, meaning the mens rea is satisfied through D getting drunk/taking drugs.
However, there are two exceptions to this:
D would not have realised the risk if they had been sober.
D's intoxication was due to long-term intoxication (such as alcohol-dependancy) or health issues caused by past intoxication.
R v Majewski:
D took a large amount of drugs over 48hr period then went to the pub and drank alcohol. He started a fight with 2 others, then attacked the bartender and 3 police officers.
Outcome:
Guilty of ABH
Defence not allowed as getting intoxicated is reckless behaviour.
II + SI cases:
The defence is only allowed if D did not form the mens rea whilst intoxicated. Even if they were not aware of their intoxicated state, if D did have the mens rea for the crime they will still be guilty.
Kingston 1994
Facts: D was drugged then invited to abuse a 15 yr old for the purpose of blackmail.
Outcome: Guilty-defence not allowed.
Rule:
If D has the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence then he will be guilty. Involuntary intoxication will not be a defence even if D would not have committed the offence sober.
Hardie 1985
Facts: D took girlfriend's sedative to calm down but it had an unusual effect on him and set fire to the wardrobe
Outcome: Defence allowed, D not guilty
Rule:
This is to be treated as involuntary intoxication as D was not aware of the effect the drug would have on him.
II + BI cases:
Here the defence is allowed.
As D was not intoxicated voluntarily, there is no recklessness to form the mens rea.
This was decided in
Hardie 1985.