Defences: Intoxication
- Created by: natalie..law
- Created on: 13-04-16 22:48
View mindmap
- Intoxication
- Limited effect on liability, not a true excuse, raises evidence that D did not form the mens rea for the offence
- Irrelevant in crimes of strict liability, recklessness or negligence
- Strict liability - does not need mens rea so is irrelevant
- Negligence - will only make it worse for D
- Blakey v Sutton: drink driving/D's drink spiked
- Yes in automatism (King) - even in strict liability
- Strict liability - does not need mens rea so is irrelevant
- Irrelevant in crimes of strict liability, recklessness or negligence
- 1. Was intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
- 2. Is offence one of SPECIFIC or BASIC intent?
- Specific intent = murder + s.18 OAPA (GBH with intent)
- Basic intent = assault, malicious wounding (s.47) ****, sexual assault (Burns (1973); Heard [2007]), manslaughter (Lipman [1970]), criminal damage
- Anyone committing a crime of basic intent whilst intoxicated relieves prosecution of proving recklessness
- Exception: accidents where V is harmed by D and which would not have occurred if D was sober - Brady [2006]
- Another basic intent crime: s.3(1)(a) Sexual Offences Act 2003 where a person intentionally touches another person and the touching is sexual (decided in Heard it was basic intent)
- Exception: accidents where V is harmed by D and which would not have occurred if D was sober - Brady [2006]
- Anyone committing a crime of basic intent whilst intoxicated relieves prosecution of proving recklessness
- Basic intent = assault, malicious wounding (s.47) ****, sexual assault (Burns (1973); Heard [2007]), manslaughter (Lipman [1970]), criminal damage
- Specific intent = murder + s.18 OAPA (GBH with intent)
- Voluntary intoxication
- Negates the mens rea for specific intent crimes (ONLY - cannot negate for crimes which can be committed by recklessness)
- Includes where D is an addict and unable to resist OR if D misjudged the amount of alcohol consuming OR its intoxicating effect (R v Allen [1988])
- Includes cases where D did not take medical advice or overdosed on prescribed drug (cf. Quick
- 2. Majewski [1977] HL D on drink and drugs attacked police officer in pub, q. was if he had formed intention to commit GBH
- Conviction upheld - voluntary intoxication only negates mens rea of specific intent crimes
- Not relevant for crimes of mens rea or basic intent; assault - basic intent (can be committed recklessly)
- 'self-induced intoxication is no defence to a crime in which recklessness in enough to constitute the mens rea
- R v Garlick [1981] - issue for jury is not whether D had capacity to form intention but whether he had intention
- Follows from Majewski that s 18 OAP, murder, attempt, burglary, theft and robbery - all specific intent crimes
- Theft: Ruse v Read [1949]; Bennett [1995]
- s.18 OAPA: Maekin (1836); Pordage [1975]
- Theft: Ruse v Read [1949]; Bennett [1995]
- Follows from Majewski that s 18 OAP, murder, attempt, burglary, theft and robbery - all specific intent crimes
- R v Garlick [1981] - issue for jury is not whether D had capacity to form intention but whether he had intention
- 'self-induced intoxication is no defence to a crime in which recklessness in enough to constitute the mens rea
- Not relevant for crimes of mens rea or basic intent; assault - basic intent (can be committed recklessly)
- Conviction upheld - voluntary intoxication only negates mens rea of specific intent crimes
- 1. DPP v Beard [1920] D, drunk, put hand over V's mouth to effect ****. She died of asphyxiation
- Conviction quashed - murder is crime of specific intent to kill/GBH, prosecution could only prove ****
- Murder: Beard'
- Burglary: Durante
- Theft: Ruse v Read [1949]; Bennett [1995]
- s.18 OAPA: Maekin (1836); Pordage [1975]
- Theft: Ruse v Read [1949]; Bennett [1995]
- Burglary: Durante
- Negates the mens rea for specific intent crimes (ONLY - cannot negate for crimes which can be committed by recklessness)
- Involuntary
- If coerced
- If taken under doctor's prescription as long as medical regime adhered to
- If D mistakes what he is consuming (Ross v HM Advocate (1991); People v Carlo (1974))
- In drugs taken for medicinal purposes
- Sometimes, if D did not foresee the intoxicating effect (Hardie [1984])
- If secretly administered to D without his knowledge
- Kingston (HL) unsure if mistake needs to be from D or by spiking/from drinking from wrong glass
- Technically all are operative as long as D deprived of fair opportunity to conform (Eatch [1980]/State v Brown [1888])
- If mens rea is present then D is guilty even though he would not have committed the offence if sober (jury's hands)
- Kingston (HL) unsure if mistake needs to be from D or by spiking/from drinking from wrong glass
- Intoxicant NOT taken by medical supervision but which is not known to provoke erratic or unpredicted behaviour
- Hardie - valium/criminal damage
- In drugs taken for medicinal purposes
- If D mistakes what he is consuming (Ross v HM Advocate (1991); People v Carlo (1974))
- If taken under doctor's prescription as long as medical regime adhered to
- If coerced
- 2. Is offence one of SPECIFIC or BASIC intent?
- Covers intoxication by drink, drugs and other substances
- Negates mens rea
- Limited effect on liability, not a true excuse, raises evidence that D did not form the mens rea for the offence
Comments
No comments have yet been made