Mental capacity defence. It isn’t allowed as an absolute defence in all
circumstances. As a matter of public policy, there is a need to discourage
antisocial behaviour caused by drink/drugs. Technically not a defence, just to
argue D didn’t have the MR. Leading case of Majewski sets out the rules.
Draws a distinction on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary.
Also matters whether D has committed a specific intent or basic intent crime.
Specific intent - only intention will do for MR. Basic intent - Recklessness is
enough for MR.
Involuntary intoxication:
D was spiked, under duress, prescriptions that have unexpected effects,
soporific or sedative drugs that have the opposite effect (Hardie). It will not
apply where D has underestimated the effect of the drugs they have taken
(Allen). Can be a defence to both specific intent and basic intent, provided D
has not formed MR. Kingston - intoxication was involuntary but D still
formed MR to abuse the boy, so had no defence. Hardie - D took wife’s valium
and set fire to the wardrobe, not voluntary as D was not reckless.
Voluntary intoxication:
No defence to basic intent crimes, becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of
action in itself (Majewski). It can be a defence to specific intent crimes but not
if D had formed the MR (Gallagher). If there is a fallback offence for the
specific intent offence that D is charged with, then intoxication will only
provide a partial defence (Lipman). Richardson and Irwin - if they hadn't
been drinking would they have realised the risk of injury? If not they may
have a defence and be found not guilty. (court of appeal suggested this as an
alternative approach, used to say if the outcome would have been different if
we take this approach).
circumstances. As a matter of public policy, there is a need to discourage
antisocial behaviour caused by drink/drugs. Technically not a defence, just to
argue D didn’t have the MR. Leading case of Majewski sets out the rules.
Draws a distinction on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary.
Also matters whether D has committed a specific intent or basic intent crime.
Specific intent - only intention will do for MR. Basic intent - Recklessness is
enough for MR.
Involuntary intoxication:
D was spiked, under duress, prescriptions that have unexpected effects,
soporific or sedative drugs that have the opposite effect (Hardie). It will not
apply where D has underestimated the effect of the drugs they have taken
(Allen). Can be a defence to both specific intent and basic intent, provided D
has not formed MR. Kingston - intoxication was involuntary but D still
formed MR to abuse the boy, so had no defence. Hardie - D took wife’s valium
and set fire to the wardrobe, not voluntary as D was not reckless.
Voluntary intoxication:
No defence to basic intent crimes, becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of
action in itself (Majewski). It can be a defence to specific intent crimes but not
if D had formed the MR (Gallagher). If there is a fallback offence for the
specific intent offence that D is charged with, then intoxication will only
provide a partial defence (Lipman). Richardson and Irwin - if they hadn't
been drinking would they have realised the risk of injury? If not they may
have a defence and be found not guilty. (court of appeal suggested this as an
alternative approach, used to say if the outcome would have been different if
we take this approach).
