LAW03: Criminal Law (Offences against the Person)DEFENCES: INTOXICATION

This defence covers situations of intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances such as glue-sniffing

etc.

It is not strictly a true defence but if the D has no mens rea as a result of the intoxication then the D will not be

guilty.

Whether the D is guilty or not depends on ...

1. i f t h e i n t o x i c a t i o n i s V O L U N T A R Y o r INVOLUNTARY; and then

2. if the offence committed is one of SPECIFIC or BASIC intent.

SPECIFIC intent crimes can only be satisfied through INTENTION.

BASIC intent crimes can be satisfied through either INTENTION or RECKLESSNESS.

Voluntary IntoxicationThis is where the D has CHOSEN to take the

intoxicating substance.

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences

Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea of a specific intent crime.

If the D is so intoxicated that he is not able to form the mens rea of the crime then he will not be guilty.

Sheehan and Moore (1975)The Ds were drunk when they threw petrol over a tramp and set fire to him. The Ds were too drunk to form the intention to kill or cause GBH. They were found not guilty of murder (a specific intent crime).

But if the D is voluntarily intoxicated and is able to form the mens rea then they will be guilty.

Intoxicated intent is still intent.

Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

The D decided to kill his wife and so bought a knife for the killing and a bottle of whisky. D drank a large quantity of whisky before killing his wife.

The D was guilty of murder as he had the mens rea for murder even though he was intoxicated.

Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences

Voluntary intoxication is never a defence for basic intent offences.

Why?

Becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless form of behaviour and recklessness satisfies the mens rea of

basic intent offences.

This was decided in the case of Majewski (1976); the D had taken a mixture of alcohol and drugs. In a very intoxicated

state he attacked people in a pub and the police officers who tried to arrest him.

The HL confirmed that voluntary intoxication is not a defence for basic intent crimes.

Lord Elwyn-Jones stated ... see Cases and Materials P3.

This is quite a harsh result and the courts have taken a different approach in some cases.

Richardson and Irwin (1998)The Ds and V were students. Each had drunk 5 pints of lager when they started "horseplaying". The V was lifted over a balcony and dropped 10 feet, suffering serious injury.

The Ds' s. 20 convictions were quashed. The CA held that the jury should have considered if the Ds would have realised the risk of in jury i f they had not been intoxicated.

Involuntary intoxicationThis is where the D does not know he has taken an

intoxicating substance.

It covers situations where drinks have been "spiked" or when prescribed drugs have an unexpected effect

(Hardie (1984)).

Involuntary intoxication can be a defence to both specific and basic intent offences.

But, once again, the intoxication must cause the D to be unable to form the mens rea of a crime.

Intoxicated intent is still intent.

Kingston (1994)The D's coffee was drugged by blackmailers. The D was then shown a 15 year old boy (also drugged) and was invited to abuse him. The D did so and the blackmailers photographed him.

The HL upheld the D's conviction for indecent assault. The D had the mens rea and therefore could n o t r e l y o n a d e f e n c e o f involuntary intoxication.