Intoxication
a. Definitions
- Intoxication is a means of denying mens rea serves as evidence to support the claim that D
did not have the mens rea to commit an offence
- Does not apply to strict liability offences
b. Not a Denial of Capacity
- Intoxication is not a denial of the capacity to form mens rea, but denying the actual formation
of mens rea
R v Cole
V was evicted from pub for allegedly blowing down a girl’s neck
D followed V out of the pub, smashed him in the head with a glass and continued to attack
him
D convicted of s.18 OAPA offence, but appealed
Conviction overturned as jury had been misdirected; does not matter whether D could form
MR, only matters whether she did form the MR
c. ‘Drunken Intent is Still Intent’
R v Kingston
D had homosexual paedophiliac tendencies; drugged and placed in a room with a drugged
boy D gave in to his tendencies
D convicted of indecent assault; he accepted that he had committed the act but argued that
he would not have done it under ordinary circumstances
Held that intoxication only serves as evidence to deny mens rea, but D had said that he
chose to do it, just that he would not ordinarily have done it D admitted to having mens
rea
d. Involuntary Intoxication
- Making a mistake as to the alcohol or drug administered (eg. 13% instead of 5% alcohol) is only
a mistake about D’s ability to handle it court will still hold that it is D’s fault
Ross v HM Advocate
Someone spiked D’s drink
After drinking it, D attacked strangers with a knife, causing injuries
Held that D could claim involuntary intoxication as a defence; had not chosen to get into
the state he was in lack of mens rea was plausible
R v Hardie
D took valium and set V’s wardrobe on fire
Held that even though valium was self-administered, it was taken for medical purpose + side
effects were not widely known constituted involuntary intoxication
a. Definitions
- Intoxication is a means of denying mens rea serves as evidence to support the claim that D
did not have the mens rea to commit an offence
- Does not apply to strict liability offences
b. Not a Denial of Capacity
- Intoxication is not a denial of the capacity to form mens rea, but denying the actual formation
of mens rea
R v Cole
V was evicted from pub for allegedly blowing down a girl’s neck
D followed V out of the pub, smashed him in the head with a glass and continued to attack
him
D convicted of s.18 OAPA offence, but appealed
Conviction overturned as jury had been misdirected; does not matter whether D could form
MR, only matters whether she did form the MR
c. ‘Drunken Intent is Still Intent’
R v Kingston
D had homosexual paedophiliac tendencies; drugged and placed in a room with a drugged
boy D gave in to his tendencies
D convicted of indecent assault; he accepted that he had committed the act but argued that
he would not have done it under ordinary circumstances
Held that intoxication only serves as evidence to deny mens rea, but D had said that he
chose to do it, just that he would not ordinarily have done it D admitted to having mens
rea
d. Involuntary Intoxication
- Making a mistake as to the alcohol or drug administered (eg. 13% instead of 5% alcohol) is only
a mistake about D’s ability to handle it court will still hold that it is D’s fault
Ross v HM Advocate
Someone spiked D’s drink
After drinking it, D attacked strangers with a knife, causing injuries
Held that D could claim involuntary intoxication as a defence; had not chosen to get into
the state he was in lack of mens rea was plausible
R v Hardie
D took valium and set V’s wardrobe on fire
Held that even though valium was self-administered, it was taken for medical purpose + side
effects were not widely known constituted involuntary intoxication
