1. Intoxication

2. Intoxication - General
Applies to alcohol or drugs
Rarely succeeds as a defence
May succeed if it negates MR
2 things to consider:
Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
Was the crime one of basic or specific intent?

3. Voluntary and Involuntary Intoxication
Voluntary - D takes drink/drugs of his own free will
Involuntary – D does not know he is taking alcohol or intoxicating drugs
Involuntary Intoxication – there will only be a defence if the MR was not formed – if this is proved, D acquitted

4. Examples of Involuntary Intoxication
D’s drink spiked with alcohol or drugs
D takes drugs prescribed by Doctor in accordance with the instructions
D takes a non-dangerous drug, although not prescribed to him, in a non-dangerous way

5. Involuntary Intoxication as a Defence
Effect of intoxication is that D was unable to form the MR of the offence
Kingston – D charged with indecent assault on 15 year old. D had paedophilic homosexual tendencies which he normally fully controlled. D claimed his drink had been laced with sedatives and he had no recollections of the events and would never have committed the offence if he had not been affected by the drug. Held that even though he was not to blame for the intoxication, he did have intent for the offence when it was committed. Case of disinhibition – taking of the drug lowered D’s ability to resist temptation, so his desires overrode his ability to control them. Intoxicated intent is still intent
Allen – not realising the strength of alcohol or drugs will not be classed as involuntary intoxication
Hardie – voluntary consumption of non-dangerous drugs (in this case valium) not prescribed to D may not be seen as voluntary intoxication. To determine whether it is voluntary intoxication, Jury must consider whether D had been reckless in consuming it

6. If Involuntary Intoxication…
…if the effect of the alcohol/drugs has removed D’s intention (MR) intoxication is a complete defence - acquittal

7. Distinction Between Crimes of Basic and Specific Intent
If voluntary intoxication, must establish whether crime is basic or specific intent
Basic Intent Crimes
Specific Intent Crimes
Assault
S.18 OAPA 1861
Battery
Murder
S.47 OAPA 1861
S.20 OAPA 1861
Involuntary Manslaughter

8. Basic Intent Crimes
General principle – voluntary intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent, not basic intent
Basic Intent crimes are where MR includes recklessness – as D’s action in becoming voluntarily intoxicated is in itself reckless behaviour, MR is satisfied
Majewski – D who had drunk alcohol and taken drugs refused to leave the pub. D violent and abusive. D charged with S.47 OAPA 1861 – defence of voluntary intoxication unsuccessful as S.47 is a basic intent crime

9. Specific Intent Crimes
Voluntary intoxication can be raised as a defence to crimes of specific intent – i.e. where MR can only be intent – e.g. murder, S.18 OAPA
Voluntary intoxication can remove D’s MR
D will need to prove that intoxication meant he did not form the necessary intent, but may still be convicted of a lesser basic intent offence that only requires recklessness for MR.
But not all specific intent crimes have a basic intent equivalent – e.g. theft

10. Voluntary Intoxication – Specific Intent Crimes being Reduced to Basic Intent Crimes
E.g. – murder = SI, corresponding BI crime is manslaughter
Lipman – D taken LSD. Suffered hallucinations and believed he was being attacked by snakes. Killed his girlfriend who had also taken the drug by forcing a sheet into her mouth. D charged with murder but acquitted as he could not have formed the necessary MR. Found guilty of UAM as this is a crime of basic intent. Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to murder but not manslaughter
Can’t get drunk for “Dutch Courage” to commit a crime and then plead defence of intoxication
Attorney-General for N. Ireland v Gallagher – D decided to kill his wife. Bought a bottle of whisky and a knife. Drank whisky and became so drunk he could not form the MR for murder, then killed wife. As he had formed intention to kill her before he became intoxicated, he had no defence of intoxication

11. Questions on Involuntary Intoxication
Voluntary or Involuntary Intoxication?
Involuntary
Voluntary
Did intoxication remove MR?
Was crime Basic or Specific Intent?
Basic Intent (recklessness) – No defence
Specific Intent (Intent only) – has intoxication removed intention?
YES = defence of Intoxication - Acquittal
NO – no defence of Intoxication
YES = defence of Intoxication – but D convicted of lesser basic intent crime
NO – no defence of Intoxication