General Defences - Intoxication

• covers alcohol, drugs and other substances (e.g. glue)
• Intoxication is a denial of MR
• When looking at intoxication, will consider:
  • Whether intoxication is voluntary or involuntary
  • whether the offence was specific or basic intent

What is specific intent?

• offences where only intention is in the mens rea (recklessness will not suffice)
  • murder
  • s18 OAPA1861

What is basic intent?

• offences where recklessness is sufficient for the MR
  • s39 CJA 1988
  • s47 + s20 OAPA

• D has decided to take an intoxicating substance.
  • Includes prescribed medication knowing that the drug will make him intoxicated

• Can negate MR for specific intent
  • If D is so intoxicated that he cannot form the MR for the offence, he is not guilty

DPP v Beard (1920)

• D killed 13 yr old girl. Charged w/murder
• Claimed to be too intoxicated to have formed the MR for murder. Convicted but appealed.
• Held: If D was so drunk that he could not form the required intent, he cannot be guilty of a specific intent offence. 

Sheehan and Moore (1975)

• Ds lit up a tramp when drunk
• Did not have the MR for murder, because they were too intoxicated to intend their actions

Where D has necessary MR for offence, despite his intoxication, the intoxication does not provide a defence. Drunken intention is still intention

AG for Northen Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

• D decided to kill his wife
• bought knife + large bottle of whiskey (dutch courage)
• drunk most of whiskey then killed wife.
• Conviction upheld: D already had the intention

• Voluntary intoxication + basic intent cannot be a defence
  • Voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless cause of condcucts and recklessness is sufficient to satisfy MR

Majewski (1976)

• D had taken both alcohol and drugs
• He attacked people in intoxicated state and was convicted of s47 ABH
• HL upheld all convictions
  • Lord Elwyn-Jones: a D who gets voluntarily intoxicated 'supplies the evidence of mens rea, or guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR in assault cases' 

Ruling in Majewski has been seen as harsh and courts have taken the view that the jury should consider whether the D would have realised the risk if he was not intoxicated:

Richardson and Irwin (1999)

• Ds = uni students 'horseplaying' drunk. V was dropped from a balcony and suffered serious injury
• s20 convictions quashed. CA held the jury should have been directed to consider whether Ds would have realised the risk if they had not been drunk
  • Not reckless if they would not have forseen the risk of their actions while sober 

• Where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance
  • laced drinks / prescribed medicine w/ unexpected side effects
• if successful, can be a defence to any offence, regardless of whether it is basic or specific intent

TEST: Did the D have the necessary MR when he committed the offence

Kingston

• D had paedophilic tendencies
• X (who wanted to blackmail him) laced his drink
• D was shown a 15 yr old who was asleep + X invited him to abuse him
  • D did and was photographed by X
• Held: Conviction upheld. If D had formed the MR for the offence (having paedophilic tendencies = having intention) then involuntary intoxication is not a defence

Hardie

• D took valium prescribed to former GF but didn't know they could make his behaviour unpredicatble. Set fire to a wardrobe, but conviction quashed because he didn't know what he was doing due to the valium

• if D is intoxicated + this makes him mistaken about a key fact, the defence may or may not be available depending on what the mistake was about
• If mistake is about something meaning D did not have the necessary MR, then, for specific intent offences, the defence is available.
• If the offence is of basic intent, then the defence is not available. 

Lipman

• D + his girlfriend took LSD. 
• D hallucinated + believed that he was being attacked by snakes.
• Killed V, believing that snakes were coming out of her mouth, which he thought was the centre of the earth
• Held: did not have intention for murder
  • Did not intend to kill/cause GBH ato another human being
  • Given manslaughter, because he took LSD which was reckless in itself

• If Mistake is about another aspect (e.g. the amount of force needed in self-defence), then the defence will fail

O'Grady (1987)

• D + V had been drinking together, then went back to D's flat
• They tussled and V died
• D claimed he had been defending himself
• Judge: if D had mistakenly used an unreasonable amount of force to defend himself as a result of being voluntarily intoxicated, defence unavailable. D convicted
• Appeal dismissed. 

Hatton (2005)

• D + V = drunk
• D woke up to see V had been killed w/ a sledgehammer, thinking they might have fought w/ weapons
• D was convicted
• Held: ruling in O'Grady not limited to basic intent offences

• There are two types of intoxication - voluntary (the D did it himself) and involuntary (did not know he was taking intoxicating substance)
• Voluntary intoxication is successful for specific intent offences
  • lacks the MR of intention (Beard, Sheehan and Moore)
  • ... unless intention was already formed (Gallagher)
• Voluntary intoxication is not successful for basic intent offences
  • becoming voluntarily intoxicated is, in itself,  a reckless cause of conduct (Majewski), so recklessness is already there
    • Courts found this harsh. Ask jury whether D would have know the risk of his actions if he was sober (Richardson and Irwin)
• Involuntary intoxication is tested by asking whether D had the necessary MR at the time of committing the offence (Kingston, Hardie)
• Intoxicated mistakes
  • Basic intent - not available.
  • Specific intent - if the mistake meant D did not have necessary MR, the defence is availabe (Lipman)
• Self defence + intoxicated mistake will fail if the mistake is anything other than D not having necessary MR
  • It will fail for both basic and specific intent offences (O'Grady, Hatton)