Defences - Intoxication

This can occur through alcohol or drugs.

• Voluntary intoxication = This is where the accused has willingly become intoxicated. This is the defence to some crimes but not others.

• Involuntary intoxication = This is where the accused has become intoxicated through no fault of their own. This can be a defence to all crimes.

Just being intoxicated ("tipsy") is not a defence. The intoxication must be significant ("wasted") enough to prevent the accused from having the necessary mens rea.

If the accused is so intoxicated that he has no mens rea, then according to legal principle he should be found not guilty. However for obvious public policy reasons (for the good of society) the law cannot allow voluntary intoxication to excuse all criminal behaviour. For this reason there are strict limits on the defence.

The accused must have been so intoxicated that he had no intention to commit the crime. This was stated in the murder case of DPP v Beard 1920.

The defence will fail if the accused was just a bit drunk "drunken intent is still intent" this was stated as obiter in Sheenan and Moore 1975.

The accused whilst intoxicated ***** a 13 year old and put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming.

The defendants in a drunken state set fire to and killed a tramp.

It is no defence if for example, you get drunk in order to give you the nerve to commit a crime. A.G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963.

The accused bought a knife and a bottle of whisky in order to kill his wife. He drank the whisky before killing her. Murder conviction was upheld.

Crimes of specific intent = The only mens rea is intention

Crimes of basic intent = The mens rea can be intenton or recklessness

This distinction comes from a case of DPP v Majweski 1977.

During a 24 hour drug and alcohol binge the accused smashed some windows committed ABH and assaulted some police officers. The HOL said that he could not use voluntary intoxication because these were all crimes of basic intent with recklessness as the mens rea. Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent.

• Intention is the only mens rea

• Voluntary intoxication is a defence

• Murder, Theft, Attempts, S.18 GBH

• Recklessness is in mens rea

• Voluntary intoxication is not a defence 

• Involuntary manslaughter, Common assault/ battery, S.47 ABH, S.20 GBH

In many cases, where voluntary intoxication is a defence to a specific intent crime, the conviction may simply be reduced to a basic intent crimefor which voluntary intoxication is no defence eg. a S.18 may be reduce to a S.20. Murder will be reduced to involuntary manslaughter. Sheenan and Moore 1975. Lipman 1970.

The accused was hallucinating on LSD and thought that his girlfriend was a snake. He stuffed sheets down her throat and killed her. He could us voluntary intoxication as a defence to murder. However, the charge was simply reduced to involuntary manslaughter, for which voluntary intoxication is no defence.

This can be a defence to crimes of specific and basic intent crimes.

• Forced intoxication.

• Spiked food/drink.

• Mistaken intoxication e.g where the accused wrongly thinks that he has been given an alcohol free drink. However just mis-judging the strength of the alcohol is not involuntary intoxication. Allen 1998.

• The unforseeable effects of taking a perscribed drug.

• Unforseeable aggressive states caused by sedatives. Hardie 1985.

The accused committed sexual assault after drinking some homemade wine off a friend. It was much stronger than he thought and so he claimed involuntary intoxicationas a defence. The court said that this was not involuntary intoxication  and so he had no defence to the basic intent crime.

Where a new perscription puts the accused in an automatic state.

Hardie 1985.

The accused, upset by his girlfriends rejection, took some of the valium that she offered him. Instead of calming him down it had the opposit effect, he set fire to her wardrobe. The HOL said that this was involuntary intoxication and therefore could be a defence to the basic intent crie of criminal damage.

Kingston 1994.

A business rival spiked the accuseds food and drink as part of a set up where he was tempted to have sex with a 15 year old boy and then blackmailed using the photographs. Kingston said that he would not have done it if he had been sober. But he still knew what he was doing even though it reduced his inhabitions. The HOL said that this showed he still had some mens rea and therefore even though the intoxication was involuntary he could not use the defence.

If the accused became involuntary intoxicated because he was reckless then it will not be a defence to basic intent crimes. Bailey 1983.

The accused did not eat after taking his insulin he committed GBH with an iron bar. The COA said that if he knew that he might get into that state by not eating then even though it was involuntary intoxiation it would not be a defence to the basic intent S.20 GBH.