Intoxication

Intoxication is not a true defence but is relevant to determine the mens rea. It will only work as a defence when it negates D's mens rea.

Type of Intoxication

Voluntary Intoxication - Voluntarily becomes intoxicated and knows the effect of the drug Involuntary Intoxication- D is not aware that they are taking an intoxicating substance

Type of Crime

Specific intent crimes- needs intention ( murder, S18 ) Basic intent- Recklessness or intention ( Assault, Battery, s47, s20 )

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences

Lipman- D took LSD, hallucinated and thought his girlfriend was a snake to protect himself he killed the snake (her). He was charged with murderLegal Principle~ D will not be convicted of a specific intent offence if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea of the offences Sheehan and Moore- D's were drunk and killed a man by pouring petrol on him and setting him on fire. They were charged with murder but convicted with involuntary manslaughter.AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher- D wanted to kill his wife. So went out and brought a knife and a bottle of whisky to give him 'dutch courage'. He drank it then stabbed his wife to death. Legal Principle~ If the defendant has the required mens rea of the specific intent offence then he will be convicted. Drunken intent is still intent

Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences

DPP v Majewski- attacked people at a pub whilst under the influence he also assaulted the police officer who arrested him. The intoxication had not prevented him forming the mens rea.Legal Principle~ Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated as this can be transferred to satisfy the mens rea of the crime

Involuntary intoxication and specific intent offences

The key issue is whether the defendant had the mens rea of the specific intent offence at the time of committing the offence.Kingston- D's coffee was spiked, he was attracted to young boys but managed when sober to not act on it. He was set up by A who put him in a room with a young boy. D indecently assaulted the boy. He was convicted.Legal Principle~ If D has the mens rea of the specific intent offence he will be convicted. Drugged intent is still intent.Allen- D drank some home-made wine not realising the strength. He committed sexual assaults and claimed because he was drunk he didn't know what he was doing. He said he had not voluntarily placed himself in that condition. He was convicted.Legal Principle~ To be regarded as involuntary intoxication, the intoxication has to be completely involuntary.

Involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences

Hardie- Took his girlfriend's Valium thinking it would be calm him down. He became aggressive and set fire to her wardrobe. D was charged with arsonLegal Principle~ When D is involuntarily intoxicated he was not been reckless in becoming intoxicated. If D has not been reckless then he will not have the mens rea required and will be found not guilty