Summary Intoxication

Intoxication
Introduction:

 Can be caused by alcohol or drugs or a combination of the two
 Intoxication rarely provides a defence
 It is only a defence where the intoxication prevents the MR of the offence to be established
 It is never a defence when the D. knows what he is doing but is simply less inhibited or more
aggressive because of the intoxicant.



IF YOU HAVE MENS REA = KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING = SO NO DEFENCE



 If the defendant did actually have the mens rea for the offence, the fact that he is intoxicated
will provide no defence because a drunken intent is still an intent. In other words, D cannot
claim that, although he knew what he was doing, he would not have done it but for the
intoxication.
 The fact that intoxication was not voluntary makes no difference.
o Key case: Kingston 1995:
 15 year old boy drugged
 D was spiked and raped him
 He had some mens rea
 So defence failed
o Recent case: Heard 2007:
 Was heavily drinking, in emotional state and cutting himself
 Asked police to take him to the hospital
 There he took his penis out and rubbed it on the officer
 Held: he was drunk but had the necessary mens rea



There were other cases where:

 Spiked
 Raped underage girl
 Knew what he was doing – he covered her mouth = shows some intent (mens rea)

 Homemade rum
o Voluntary intoxication
o Made a mistake as to the strength of the intoxicant



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic Principles:

 No defence, if despite the intoxication, D formed the mens rea

,  If involuntary intoxicated and failed to form mens rea = acquittal (for crimes of basic and specific
intent)
 If voluntary intoxicated and failed to form mens rea = acquittal for specific intent crime // no
defence for basic intent (because being voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct in
itself Majewski)



Voluntary Intoxication:

 D knows he is consuming an intoxicant or should have known; or

 Makes a mistake about the strength of the intoxicant; or

 Ignores medical advice regarding prescription drugs.

Involuntary intoxication

 D does not know he is consuming an intoxicant; or

 D is forced to consume an intoxicant.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voluntary Intoxication:

The rules which apply to voluntary intoxication are set by the H/L in DPP v Majeswski 1977.

It was held:

 Voluntary intoxication: no defence to crimes of basic intent

 Voluntary intoxication: it maybe evidence which may negate the mens rea of a specific
intent offence(by arguing that due to his voluntary intoxication he did not , in fact, form the
necessary intention and thus is not liable)



The mere fact that D is voluntary intoxicated will not necessarily mean that he is unable to form
intention. If the D has the intention despite being drunk ie formed the necessary mens rea of the
offence, he cannot rely on the defence ( as stated in Kingston 1994)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Intent Crime: no recklessness – intention only / partial defence – reduces to basic
intent/lesser crime

Is one which requires proof of intention as the mens rea element of the offence.

 Murder( Beard 1920,Rowbotham 2011)

 Wounding or GBH with Intent(Bratty 1963;Pordage 1975)