A-
Level
Law:
Crimi
nal
Law
(01)
Topic 6:
General Defences
2)
Name: Intoxication
Teacher:
, Defence of
Intoxication
Intoxication can only be used as a defence if the D was unable to
form the necessary mens rea for his crime because of his
intoxication.
Intoxication can occur through the effects of:
Solvent abuse
Alcohol
Drugs (prescription and/or illegal drugs)
There is a need to balance rights of a D who has no mens rea due
to intoxication (legal principles) against the need to send out a
strong deterrent message to protect society (public policy)!
Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary and it depends on whether offence
charged is one of specific intent or basic intent as to whether D might be able to
use the defence, or not.
Specific and Basic Intent
Crimes
Specific Intent Crimes Basic Intent Crimes
These crimes where These are crimes where
intention is required for the mens rea includes intent or
mens rea. Recklessness is recklessness. An example
not enough. of a basic intent crime is
criminal damage. Here the
An example of specific defendant can be guilty of
intent crime is murder. causing criminal damage if
Here the specific intent he was reckless. He does
required to be guilty of this not have to intend the
offence is intent to kill or damage, so long as he
intent to cause GBH. foresaw the risk of his
, Voluntary
Intoxication
This is where the D CHOOSES to take an intoxicating substance. The intoxication can
be caused through drinking alcohol, taking drugs, etc. It can also be through the
taking of prescribed drugs which the D knows will make him intoxicated.
Voluntary intoxication and Specific Intent offences
If the D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the MR for the specific intent
offence, he may be able to rely on the defence:
o DPP v Beard (1920)
The D raped a 13 year old girl whilst intoxicated. He put his hand over her
mouth to stop her screaming but she died of suffocation. He claimed he was
so drunk at the time of the attack that he didn’t realise what he was doing.
On appeal it was held that if the D was so drunk that he could not form the specific
intent required for his offence (e.g. the intent to kill for murder), then he could not
be guilty of committing it.
However, he could be guilty of a lesser offence instead, e.g. manslaughter. Giulty of
UAM instead of murder.
o Lipman (1970)
The D and his girlfriend had taken the drug LSD. Whilst on his ‘trip’ he
hallucinated and thought that he was at the centre of the earth being
attacked by snakes. He awoke to find his GF was dead. He had strangled her
and had stuffed a bedsheet into her mouth. He claimed he was too
intoxicated to have formed mens rea.
His intoxication could be used to demonstrate that he lacked the mens rea for
murder, as it is a crime of specific intent. However, his intoxication could not be a
defence to manslaughter, as it is a crime of basic intent. Guilty of UAM instead of
murder.
Where the D still has the necessary MR for the specific intent offence despite his
intoxication then he will still be guilty of the offence.
Level
Law:
Crimi
nal
Law
(01)
Topic 6:
General Defences
2)
Name: Intoxication
Teacher:
, Defence of
Intoxication
Intoxication can only be used as a defence if the D was unable to
form the necessary mens rea for his crime because of his
intoxication.
Intoxication can occur through the effects of:
Solvent abuse
Alcohol
Drugs (prescription and/or illegal drugs)
There is a need to balance rights of a D who has no mens rea due
to intoxication (legal principles) against the need to send out a
strong deterrent message to protect society (public policy)!
Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary and it depends on whether offence
charged is one of specific intent or basic intent as to whether D might be able to
use the defence, or not.
Specific and Basic Intent
Crimes
Specific Intent Crimes Basic Intent Crimes
These crimes where These are crimes where
intention is required for the mens rea includes intent or
mens rea. Recklessness is recklessness. An example
not enough. of a basic intent crime is
criminal damage. Here the
An example of specific defendant can be guilty of
intent crime is murder. causing criminal damage if
Here the specific intent he was reckless. He does
required to be guilty of this not have to intend the
offence is intent to kill or damage, so long as he
intent to cause GBH. foresaw the risk of his
, Voluntary
Intoxication
This is where the D CHOOSES to take an intoxicating substance. The intoxication can
be caused through drinking alcohol, taking drugs, etc. It can also be through the
taking of prescribed drugs which the D knows will make him intoxicated.
Voluntary intoxication and Specific Intent offences
If the D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the MR for the specific intent
offence, he may be able to rely on the defence:
o DPP v Beard (1920)
The D raped a 13 year old girl whilst intoxicated. He put his hand over her
mouth to stop her screaming but she died of suffocation. He claimed he was
so drunk at the time of the attack that he didn’t realise what he was doing.
On appeal it was held that if the D was so drunk that he could not form the specific
intent required for his offence (e.g. the intent to kill for murder), then he could not
be guilty of committing it.
However, he could be guilty of a lesser offence instead, e.g. manslaughter. Giulty of
UAM instead of murder.
o Lipman (1970)
The D and his girlfriend had taken the drug LSD. Whilst on his ‘trip’ he
hallucinated and thought that he was at the centre of the earth being
attacked by snakes. He awoke to find his GF was dead. He had strangled her
and had stuffed a bedsheet into her mouth. He claimed he was too
intoxicated to have formed mens rea.
His intoxication could be used to demonstrate that he lacked the mens rea for
murder, as it is a crime of specific intent. However, his intoxication could not be a
defence to manslaughter, as it is a crime of basic intent. Guilty of UAM instead of
murder.
Where the D still has the necessary MR for the specific intent offence despite his
intoxication then he will still be guilty of the offence.
