Intoxication Defence

Front 1

What are four introductory points on Intoxication?

Back 1

Intoxication can be caused by alcohol, legal and illegal drugs, or other substances such as glue.

It concerns the balancing of public policy and legal principle.

Parliament has intervened so that the defence is only available in limited circumstances and where D lacked the MR.

D must provide evidence of intoxication and whether the defence is available is a point of law for the judge. Whether it applies is for the jury to decide.

Front 2

What happened in R v Groark (1999)?

Back 2

D had drunk 10 pints of beer but was not drunk. English cases are to the effect that D must be so drunk that he did not form the requisite MR laid out by the offence. This case confirmed that the judge must decide whether the defence is available after D's appeal on the same point.

Front 3

What are the six cases of Voluntary Intoxication?

Back 3

DPP v Beard (1920)
R v Sheehan and Moore (1975)
R v Kingston (1994)
DPP v Majewski (1976)
R v Richardson and Irwin (1999)
R v Heard (2007)

Front 4

What happened in DPP v Beard (1920)? What did this case establish?

Back 4

D had been charged with murder and put forward as his defence the fact that he was too intoxicated to have formed the MR of the offence. He was convicted. On appeal, Lord Birkenhead stated the rule that currently stands: "If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required, he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved."

Front 5

What happened in R v Sheehan and Moore (1975)? What did this case establish?

Back 5

Ds, in a drunken state, poured petrol over V and set him alight, causing his death. The court held the relevant question was not whether the Ds were capable of forming the MR but whether the MR was formed as a drunken intent is still and intent. This was confirmed in R v Groark (1999).

Front 6

What happened in R v Kingston (1994)?

Back 6

D's coffee was laced by a blackmailer. He had paedophilic tendencies and was shown a 15-year-old boy and invited to abuse him. The D did so and was photographed by the blackmailer. The HL upheld his conviction for indecent assault as he was held the have formed the intention of the offence.

Front 7

What happened in DPP v Majewski (1976)? What did this case establish?

Back 7

D had spent 24 hours getting drunk and taking drugs, and then smashed windows and attacked a police officer. D argued that he had been so intoxicated that he could not remember the incident at all and therefore could not have formed the necessary MR. The trial judge stated the defence was only available to offences of specific intent and as the D's offence was of basic intent, he had no defence. This is known as the Majewski test.

Front 8

What happened in R v Richardson and Irwin (1999)?

Back 8

A group of university students were very drunk and had thrown one of their colleagues over a balcony, seriously injuring him. The CA ruled that when recklessness forms part of an offence, if Ds lacked MR because they were intoxicated, and would have had MR if they had been sober, they can be found liable.

Front 9

What happened in R v Heard (2007)?

Back 9

D was charged with sexual assault under s.3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He had rubbed his penis against V's thigh. The trial judge ruled that the offence was one of basic intent and therefore intoxication was not available as a defence. D's appeal was rejected.

Front 10

What are some examples of offences of Basic Intent?

Back 10

Involuntary Manslaughter (R v Lipman)
Rape (s.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003)
GBH (s.20 OAPA 1861, DPP v Majewski)
Criminal Damage (s.1 CDA 1971, R v Caldwell)
ABH (s.47 OAPA 1861, DPP v Majewski)
Common Assault (s.39 CJA 1988, DPP v Majewski)

Front 11

What are some examples of Specific Intent Offences?

Back 11

Murder (R v Beard)
Wounding with Intent (s.18 OAPA 1861, R v Bratty)
Theft (s.1 Theft Act 1968, DPP v Majewski)
Burglary with Intent to Steal (s.9 Theft Act 1968, R v Durante)
Aggravated Criminal Damage (DPP v Majewski)

Front 12

What is a fall-back?

Back 12

The CPS has developed the system of fall-backs with specific intent offence, with basic intent offences to revert to in the instance where the specific intent offence is not proven. An example of this is Murder and Manslaughter or Aggravated Criminal Damage and Criminal Damage.

Front 13

What are the three forms of Involuntary Intoxication covered by the courts?

Back 13

(1) Prescribed Drugs
(2) Soporific Drugs
(3) Laced Drinks

Front 14

What happened in R v Bailey (1983)?

Back 14

D was a diabetic who had taken his insulin but not eaten any food besides sugar and as a result injured his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend in a bout of hypoglycaemia. The CA distinguished between alcohol and true drugs, and therapeutic drugs; and whether or not D had foreseen the risk that failing to eat would make him violent. As D hadn't, his conviction was quashed.

Front 15

What happened in R v Hardie?

Back 15

D, in an upset state, took Valium to sedate himself. He then started a fire in his girlfriend's bedroom and was charged with damaging property and intending or being reckless as to whether life was endangered. The CA quashed the conviction as D did not realise the risk of violence given the drug was a sedative one.

Front 16

What are the three cases of Laced Drinks?

Back 16

R v Kingston
R v Allen
R v Eatch

Front 17

What happened in R v Allen?

Back 17

D voluntarily drank homemade wine, but was unaware that the wine he was drinking had a high alcohol content. He then indecently assaulted a neighbour. It was held that simply not knowing the precise strength of the alcohol did not make his intoxication involuntarily.

Front 18

What happened in R v Eatch?

Back 18

D had been smoking cannabis and drinking beer. His drink was then laced with a more potent drug. The trial judge stated that it was up to the jury to decide whether D's condition was "due solely to involuntary intoxication".

Front 19

What happened in A-G for NI v Gallagher?

Back 19

D wanted to kill his wife and so bought a knife and a bottle of whiskey, which it seems he drank to give himself Dutch courage but he because so drunk he was incapable of forming the MR. He then killed his wife. The HL held that if drugs or alcohol are consumed to help carry out an offence, then D has no defence.

Front 20

What are the three cases of Drunken Mistake? What statutory authority now exists?

Back 20

R v Lipman
R v O'Grady
R v Hatton
Section 76 CJIA 2008

Front 21

What happened in R v Lipman?

Back 21

D a his girlfriend had taken LSD before falling asleep at her flat. LSD causes hallucinations. D thought that he was at the centre of the earth and being attacked by snakes. When he awoke, he found his girlfriend was dead. He had strangled her and stuffed a sheet into her mouth believing she was a snake attacking him. His conviction for manslaughter was upheld.

Front 22

What happened in R v O'Grady?

Back 22

D had drunk a considerable amount of cider. In his drunken state, he had killed his friend, believing (apparently mistakenly) that the friend was trying to kill him. If he had been sober, this mistake could have allowed him a defence, but because he had voluntarily got drunk, the courts held that he should be found liable.

Front 23

What happened in R v Hatton?

Back 23

D had drunk over 20 pints of beer when he and V returned to D's flat. D later found V dead due to injuries caused by a sledgehammer. D had no recollection of the night but thought that V may have attacked him with a stick. D was convicted and on appeal the CA upheld the conviction by applying the decision in R v O'Grady- that a drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence is no defence.

Front 24

What did s.76 CJIA 2008 establish?

Back 24

Statute law now makes it clear that a mistaken belief caused through the D's voluntary intoxication cannot give a defence. Section 76 (5) says that this "does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributed to intoxication that was voluntarily induced".

Front 25

What happened in Jaggard v Dickinson?

Back 25

D, while drunk, broke into what she believed to be her friend's house, knowing that she would consent to such action; it was actually some one else's house and D was charged with criminal damage. Under s.5 (2) (a) of the 1971 Act, there exists an exception of honest belief that the person to whom the property belonged would have consented to the damage. Therefore D was not guilty.