Defence of intoxication isn’t a true defence as it is merely failure to form the
required MR due to drink, drugs or other substances, a failure to form the MR
means the offence was incomplete. Intoxication is more often unacceptable as
an excuse (an aggravating factor).
Intoxication is a major factor in the commission of many crimes. Needs to
balance the rights of D and V (if intoxication is always a defence, then V would
not be protected).
Financial burden; the cost to the NHS of anti-social behaviour from people
using alcohol balanced against tax revenue.
It is also bizarre that it is a public policy to criminalise drink and drugs, but
there is no distinction between types, all substances are treated the same
whether legal or not.
The rules on voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication are
inadequate - Dealing with voluntary intoxication, rape is a BIO and so
intoxication would fail as a defence. However, it could be successful if D is
charged with attempted rape, which is a SIO.
● Involuntary intoxication doesn't take into account the impact on an
individual of drink or drugs to reduce a person’s inhibitions to commit crimes
and they can still be found guilty if they were capable of forming the
necessary MR (Kingston). This ignores the fact that D was not to blame for the
intoxication.
● Reform: LC has recommended including in the new bill a specific list of
situations that will be classed as involuntary intoxication.
The distinction between specific intent and basic intent offences is flawed -
Terminology of SIO and BIO is not used elsewhere in criminal law and is
, unnecessarily confusing
● Difference between basic and specific is hard to find for some offences;
Judges admitted this in Heard.
● Intoxication is not allowed for BIOs, because getting drunk is
considered a reckless course of action and so provides the MR for the offence.
This is wrong because getting drunk is only reckless in the sense of taking a
risk of doing something stupid when drunk and does not equate to the
subjective recklessness of foreseeing the risk of the particular event
happening and going ahead anyway.
● The decision to drink may be several hours before D commits the AR of
any offence.
o O’Grady - D had fallen asleep and hit his friend some hours afterwards.
o This is contrary to the normal rule that the AR & MR must coincide.
● There is criticism of the fact that with some SIO’s (e.g. murder), there is
a lesser ‘fall-back’ BIO that the D will be convicted of (e.g. manslaughter). If P
cannot prove D had formed the MR of an SIO, but one where there is no ‘fall-
back’ BIO, then D walks free.
● Reform: LC propose to abolish and apply same rules across all offences
– fairer to D’s and society
The alternative approach taken in Richardson and Irwin would make the law
much fairer - Considers whether D would have realised the relevant risk if he
had not been drinking.
● The mere fact of being intoxicated does not automatically make a D
guilty.
required MR due to drink, drugs or other substances, a failure to form the MR
means the offence was incomplete. Intoxication is more often unacceptable as
an excuse (an aggravating factor).
Intoxication is a major factor in the commission of many crimes. Needs to
balance the rights of D and V (if intoxication is always a defence, then V would
not be protected).
Financial burden; the cost to the NHS of anti-social behaviour from people
using alcohol balanced against tax revenue.
It is also bizarre that it is a public policy to criminalise drink and drugs, but
there is no distinction between types, all substances are treated the same
whether legal or not.
The rules on voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication are
inadequate - Dealing with voluntary intoxication, rape is a BIO and so
intoxication would fail as a defence. However, it could be successful if D is
charged with attempted rape, which is a SIO.
● Involuntary intoxication doesn't take into account the impact on an
individual of drink or drugs to reduce a person’s inhibitions to commit crimes
and they can still be found guilty if they were capable of forming the
necessary MR (Kingston). This ignores the fact that D was not to blame for the
intoxication.
● Reform: LC has recommended including in the new bill a specific list of
situations that will be classed as involuntary intoxication.
The distinction between specific intent and basic intent offences is flawed -
Terminology of SIO and BIO is not used elsewhere in criminal law and is
, unnecessarily confusing
● Difference between basic and specific is hard to find for some offences;
Judges admitted this in Heard.
● Intoxication is not allowed for BIOs, because getting drunk is
considered a reckless course of action and so provides the MR for the offence.
This is wrong because getting drunk is only reckless in the sense of taking a
risk of doing something stupid when drunk and does not equate to the
subjective recklessness of foreseeing the risk of the particular event
happening and going ahead anyway.
● The decision to drink may be several hours before D commits the AR of
any offence.
o O’Grady - D had fallen asleep and hit his friend some hours afterwards.
o This is contrary to the normal rule that the AR & MR must coincide.
● There is criticism of the fact that with some SIO’s (e.g. murder), there is
a lesser ‘fall-back’ BIO that the D will be convicted of (e.g. manslaughter). If P
cannot prove D had formed the MR of an SIO, but one where there is no ‘fall-
back’ BIO, then D walks free.
● Reform: LC propose to abolish and apply same rules across all offences
– fairer to D’s and society
The alternative approach taken in Richardson and Irwin would make the law
much fairer - Considers whether D would have realised the relevant risk if he
had not been drinking.
● The mere fact of being intoxicated does not automatically make a D
guilty.
