Intoxication
If a question is about balancing public policy and legal principles, public policy is referring to
public protection and legal principles refers to imposing liability where a fault occurs.
Introduction
The defence of intoxication is intended as a defence for those under the influence of
alcohol, drugs, or other substances.
It is used differently within specific and basic intent crimes and is sometimes referred
to as a mens rea test rather than an actual defence.
Specific and Basic Intent
The defence draws complicated distinctions between crimes of basic and specific
intent.
Specific intent crimes can only be satisfied through intention, whereas basic intent
crimes can be satisfied through either intention or recklessness.
Voluntary Intoxication
The defence also draws complicated distinctions between voluntary and involuntary
intoxication.
Principle 1: Voluntary Intoxication and the Inability to Form Specific Intent
As shown in R v Beard, where the defendant raped a girl and then suffocated her,
specific intent crimes can use the defence of intoxication where the defendant is too
intoxicated to form the mens rea.
On the one hand, this is justifiable, as it protects those who did not set out to harm
the victim.
However, it can be argued that they exposed themselves to the consequence when
choosing to become intoxicated, suggesting that the law prioritises the interests of
the defendant over the interests of the victim.
This principle was reiterated in the case of Bratty, where Lord Denning stated that a
defendant does not know what they are doing then there is a defence to the charge.
Sheehan and Moore
In line with this, the case of Sheehan and Moore, where the defendants were unable
to form the mens rea for murder after throwing petrol over a homeless person,
further suggested that voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for the specific
intent offence of murder.
The principle can be criticised on a number of grounds.
Firstly, given that being intoxicated is not socially acceptable, it seems strange that
intoxication for the most serious of offences, murder, becomes a defence.
If a question is about balancing public policy and legal principles, public policy is referring to
public protection and legal principles refers to imposing liability where a fault occurs.
Introduction
The defence of intoxication is intended as a defence for those under the influence of
alcohol, drugs, or other substances.
It is used differently within specific and basic intent crimes and is sometimes referred
to as a mens rea test rather than an actual defence.
Specific and Basic Intent
The defence draws complicated distinctions between crimes of basic and specific
intent.
Specific intent crimes can only be satisfied through intention, whereas basic intent
crimes can be satisfied through either intention or recklessness.
Voluntary Intoxication
The defence also draws complicated distinctions between voluntary and involuntary
intoxication.
Principle 1: Voluntary Intoxication and the Inability to Form Specific Intent
As shown in R v Beard, where the defendant raped a girl and then suffocated her,
specific intent crimes can use the defence of intoxication where the defendant is too
intoxicated to form the mens rea.
On the one hand, this is justifiable, as it protects those who did not set out to harm
the victim.
However, it can be argued that they exposed themselves to the consequence when
choosing to become intoxicated, suggesting that the law prioritises the interests of
the defendant over the interests of the victim.
This principle was reiterated in the case of Bratty, where Lord Denning stated that a
defendant does not know what they are doing then there is a defence to the charge.
Sheehan and Moore
In line with this, the case of Sheehan and Moore, where the defendants were unable
to form the mens rea for murder after throwing petrol over a homeless person,
further suggested that voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for the specific
intent offence of murder.
The principle can be criticised on a number of grounds.
Firstly, given that being intoxicated is not socially acceptable, it seems strange that
intoxication for the most serious of offences, murder, becomes a defence.
