Defences - Intoxication and Self-Defence

R v Hardie (1984) - the defendant was given some out-of-date valium tablets. He was told that the tablets would calm his nerves and do him no harm. In fact he became intoxicated and caused a fire in the flat where he lived. He was held to be involuntarily intoxicated. The judgment does not make it clear whether the test is that the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated if he knew the substance was intoxicating, or whether the defendant ought to have known that the substance was intoxicating. 

R v Allen (1988) - the defendant was drinking his friend's home-made wine, which he believed had only a little alcohol in it. In fact it contained a high level of alcohol. He was held to be voluntarily intoxicated. 

R v Bailey (1983) - the appellant went to the house of his ex-lover's new partner. The appellant was visibly upset and the partner invited him in and they had a cup of tea and discussed the situation. The appellant was diabetic and had taken insulin but had not eaten. He said he was feeling unwell and asked the partner to get him a cup of water and sugar. Ten minutes later, the appellant got up to leave. He then said he had left his glove. The partner bent over to pick up the glove and the appellant struck him with an iron bar leaving a wound which required 10 stitches. The appellant was charged with wounding under s18 OAPA 1861. At his trial he raised the defence of automatism arguing that the effect of the sugar and water had sent him into a state of hypoglycaemia and he was not conscious of his actions and thus incapable of forming the mens rea of the offence. The trial judge ruled that self-induced automatism could not be relied on. The jury thus convicted and the appellant appealed. It was held that the trial judge had mis-directed the jury. However, the mis-direction did not render the conviction unsafe.

R v Quick (1973) - the appellant was a charge nurse in a hospital. He attacked one of his patients whilst on duty. The patient was a paraplegic and suffered a fractured nose, black eyes and bruising. The appellant was charged with assault occasioning ABH under s47 OAPA 1861. The appellant sought to raise the defence of automatism as at the time of the attack he was hypoglycemic, in that he had taken too much insulin and eaten very little on the day in question. In addition, he had consumed alcohol before the attack. The trial judge ruled that this gave rise not to automatism but insanity. The defendant then changed his plea to guilty and appealed. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. His hypoglycaemia was caused not by his diabetes but by the external factor of insulin.

R v Kingston (1995) - the defendant had paedophilic tendencies and was charged with indecent assault on a boy aged 15. The defendant's defence was that he had…