Intoxication
In 2010, 45% of all arrests were alcoholic related.
Intoxication is not a defence however sometimes it can form the basis of claims of lack of mens rea. Intoxication is sufficient in many instances to satisfy recklessness and therefore the mens rea for many offences. It covers all types of drugs or alcohol - legal or illegal. The law draws a distinction between involuntary intoxication and voluntary intoxication. Intoxication is normally inculpatory in nature (used against D as evidence). Does this impose constructive liability? We can end up having accidents when we are drunk: we have to draw a line between punishing
people that need punishing than people who have had an accident whilst being drunk. Can be a partial defence to a specific intent crime.
The General Rule: DPP v Beard 1920
Leading case: Majewski 1977: outlines what the law is regarding intoxication. "If a man of his own violation..." (has to be voluntary) People who have taken substances which they did not know were alcohol or drugs could use intoxication as a defence. Hardie 1985: took vallium he went ballistic and wrecked the house. Argued he was involuntarily intoxicated because he had an uncommon effect, was taking the vallium reckless?
Drugs and alcohol are dealt the same if the D knows potential consequences of taking intoxicant. Courts have not distinguished what they mean by 'dangerous' and 'non-dangerous' substances.
Recklessness and Intoxication: R v G subjective recklessness
Samiloff: "What of an accused who because of lack of awareness or mental incapacity..."
R v Brady 2006: A guy in a nightclub fell off the barrier and squashes a person on the dance floor. - would have been obvious and
significant had he been sober at the time
S20 defence: a deliberate and non-accidental act. Was this just an accident? No actus reus = should not be liable at all. Crown had to
prove that he jumped. The D's argument was that it was safe where he was sitting, so he foresaw that there was no risk. Should only be equated with recklessness where the D does not contemplate the risk because of the drink. Difficulty because they could just say that they have not seen the risk. It would become a a difficult guessing game.
Voluntary intoxication is only irrelevant in crimes of basic rather than specific intent.
With specific intent defences you may not be able to form the intention for murder - but still liable for manslaughter.
Kingston 1995 - not sure where the line falls... Guidance in Caldwell 1982.
Specifc intent - only intention will suffice
Basic intent: recklessness
Mens rea: Does not need to prove how drunk he was to not be able to create intention. McKnight 2000 provided a factual basis about how drunk they were. Privy Council in Sooklal 1999 took another view
Basic intent crimes: Even if the D was in a state which he was about to black out - no defence. Lipman 1970: thought he was fighting off snakes and strangled wife. Dutch courage rule: A person who deliberately gets intoxicated to commit a crime cannot raise a defence.
Can restrict what would otherwise be valid defences (mistake or automatism). Provides the credible evidence of the fact that the D did in fact make a mistake he alleges or that he did in fact make a mistake he alleges or that he was in a state of automatism Jaggard v Dickinson 1981. O'Grady 1987: COA was not prepared to allow in relation to self defence a drunken mistake that the D was being attacked.
Diminished Responsibility: R v O'Downd 2012: acute voluntary intoxication is not capable of forming the basis of a plea of DR. No charge since the Coroners Act 2009 (Parliament would have expressly said so). A raging alcoholic who involuntarily has to drink: Tandy
1988.
Fenton 1975 and Dietschmann 2003.
Hendy 2006: alcohol and drugs were not to be viewed as inherent causes of abnormality of mind.
Provocation (Loss of Control): the same rules are assumed to apply in terms of alcoholism: it is to be considered as a response characteristic.
Heard 2007: Homosexual kicked out of A and E starts rubbing his penis up and down the leg of a male police officer. Because he was intoxicated, he had not got the intention - was reckless with his penis (must have some control over it at the time) - did not mean that it could not be relied upon for intentional touching.
Bree 2007: said she was unconscious but then on stand said she wasn't - even if you are drunk and consent to sex, you are still consenting to sex.
Intoxication is not a defence however sometimes it can form the basis of claims of lack of mens rea. Intoxication is sufficient in many instances to satisfy recklessness and therefore the mens rea for many offences. It covers all types of drugs or alcohol - legal or illegal. The law draws a distinction between involuntary intoxication and voluntary intoxication. Intoxication is normally inculpatory in nature (used against D as evidence). Does this impose constructive liability? We can end up having accidents when we are drunk: we have to draw a line between punishing
people that need punishing than people who have had an accident whilst being drunk. Can be a partial defence to a specific intent crime.
The General Rule: DPP v Beard 1920
Leading case: Majewski 1977: outlines what the law is regarding intoxication. "If a man of his own violation..." (has to be voluntary) People who have taken substances which they did not know were alcohol or drugs could use intoxication as a defence. Hardie 1985: took vallium he went ballistic and wrecked the house. Argued he was involuntarily intoxicated because he had an uncommon effect, was taking the vallium reckless?
Drugs and alcohol are dealt the same if the D knows potential consequences of taking intoxicant. Courts have not distinguished what they mean by 'dangerous' and 'non-dangerous' substances.
Recklessness and Intoxication: R v G subjective recklessness
Samiloff: "What of an accused who because of lack of awareness or mental incapacity..."
R v Brady 2006: A guy in a nightclub fell off the barrier and squashes a person on the dance floor. - would have been obvious and
significant had he been sober at the time
S20 defence: a deliberate and non-accidental act. Was this just an accident? No actus reus = should not be liable at all. Crown had to
prove that he jumped. The D's argument was that it was safe where he was sitting, so he foresaw that there was no risk. Should only be equated with recklessness where the D does not contemplate the risk because of the drink. Difficulty because they could just say that they have not seen the risk. It would become a a difficult guessing game.
Voluntary intoxication is only irrelevant in crimes of basic rather than specific intent.
With specific intent defences you may not be able to form the intention for murder - but still liable for manslaughter.
Kingston 1995 - not sure where the line falls... Guidance in Caldwell 1982.
Specifc intent - only intention will suffice
Basic intent: recklessness
Mens rea: Does not need to prove how drunk he was to not be able to create intention. McKnight 2000 provided a factual basis about how drunk they were. Privy Council in Sooklal 1999 took another view
Basic intent crimes: Even if the D was in a state which he was about to black out - no defence. Lipman 1970: thought he was fighting off snakes and strangled wife. Dutch courage rule: A person who deliberately gets intoxicated to commit a crime cannot raise a defence.
Can restrict what would otherwise be valid defences (mistake or automatism). Provides the credible evidence of the fact that the D did in fact make a mistake he alleges or that he did in fact make a mistake he alleges or that he was in a state of automatism Jaggard v Dickinson 1981. O'Grady 1987: COA was not prepared to allow in relation to self defence a drunken mistake that the D was being attacked.
Diminished Responsibility: R v O'Downd 2012: acute voluntary intoxication is not capable of forming the basis of a plea of DR. No charge since the Coroners Act 2009 (Parliament would have expressly said so). A raging alcoholic who involuntarily has to drink: Tandy
1988.
Fenton 1975 and Dietschmann 2003.
Hendy 2006: alcohol and drugs were not to be viewed as inherent causes of abnormality of mind.
Provocation (Loss of Control): the same rules are assumed to apply in terms of alcoholism: it is to be considered as a response characteristic.
Heard 2007: Homosexual kicked out of A and E starts rubbing his penis up and down the leg of a male police officer. Because he was intoxicated, he had not got the intention - was reckless with his penis (must have some control over it at the time) - did not mean that it could not be relied upon for intentional touching.
Bree 2007: said she was unconscious but then on stand said she wasn't - even if you are drunk and consent to sex, you are still consenting to sex.