#4617 - Intoxication - GDL Criminal Law

• Two different forms:

1. A way to negate the MR of an offence; or

2. An influencing factor on another legal principle/defence

Intoxication negating MR

• Woolmington: Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that D had committed AR with the necessary MR -so if due to intoxication the D did not have the necessary MR then they will be entitled to full acquittal

• R v Bennett: judge must direct jury on intoxication whenever there is evidence such that a reasonable jury might conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that the D did not form necessary MR

• R v Pordage: not whether the D was incapable of forming the MR c.f. R v Beard), but whether, even if still capable, he or she did form it

• Intoxication will not assist D if it can be proved that the MR was formed despite intoxication

  • R v Kingston: K admitted to paedophiliac homosexual tendencies which he managed to control – P set him up, intoxicated him and invited him to sexually abuse a boy: still guilty as despite the intoxication he formed the necessary MR: drunken intent is still an intent

When can intoxication operate to negate the MR?

1. In any crime where the intoxication is caused by drink or drugs taken involuntarily, i.e. ‘spiking’

2. In any crime where the intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily, but in bona fide pursuance of medical treatment

3. In any crime where the intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily

4. In crimes where a specific intent is required

• Evidential burden on the D to raise issue of intoxication: then the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the D formed the necessary MR

Ask:

1. Is the D voluntarily intoxicated or involuntarily intoxicated?

2. Is the intoxicant a dangerous alcohol/drug or a non-dangerous drug?

3. Is it a crime of basic intent or specific intent?

Involuntary Intoxication

• If intoxication is involuntary, it may be a defence to any offence (specific and basic intent): e.g. where D was forced to consume alcohol or other intoxicating drugs or was deceived in to doing so (R v Kingston)

• Alcohol strength: where D is aware that he is drinking alcohol but is mistaken as to its strength the intoxication will not be involuntary

• Prescription drugs: if taking according to prescription then it will be involuntary but if D exceeds prescription it may be voluntary

• Non-dangerous drugs: If the drug is not considered dangerous then the D will be involuntarily intoxicated

  • R v Hardie: divided drugs into two categories:

    • When it is common knowledge that a drug is liable to cause taker to become aggressive or to do unpredictable things it is to be classed with alcohol

    • Where there is no such common knowledge different rules apply:

      • Here D took Valium belonging to his girlfriend – he later started a fire and was charged with criminal damage – convicted as judge directed jury that drugs were to be treated as drink – so Majewski rules applied

      • CA allowed appeal as the drug was taken for calming the nerves and there was no evidence the D knew it could make him aggressive

Voluntary Intoxication

• DPP v Majewski: HL held that voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of specific intent where the D’s intoxication negated the MR (where MR is satisfied with recklessness, the act of becoming intoxicated is in itself evidence of the necessary mental state)

• Illegal drugs will be treated in the same way as alcohol (R v Hardie)

Distinction between crimes of basic and specific intent

• Majewski: crude method of categorising crimes:

  • Basic intent: Where D could be convicted on the basis of recklessness as to the consequences, or where no foresight of the consequences is required

  • Specific intent: Where intention is the only form of MR available, e.g. murder, GBH with intent, s 18 OAP 1986, theft

• However, recent CA case of R v Heard: LJ Hughs suggested the following for determining specific intent: ‘…proof of a state of mind addressing something beyond the prohibited act itself, namely its consequences’

  • More complex than in Madjewski – no universally applicable distinction: will depend on the facts

• Crimes which could be committed recklessly are crimes of basic intent – but it is more difficult with crimes which have more complex MR:

  • Rape: s (1) Sexual Offences Act 2003

    • ‘a person commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis’

    • Majewski: this would be a specific intent crime because it requires intention

    • Heard: this would be a basic intent crime as the D only needs to intend to commit the act – no intention is required to bring about a particular result/consequence

• Murder: clear example of a specific intent crime, regardless of which approach is taken: requires malice aforethought (intention to kill/cause GBH)

  • Majewski: specific as reckless is not part of MR

  • Heard: specific as the D must intend to bring about a particular consequence

• Law on this is not clear but table below should help distinguish:

Intoxication and defences: Generally intoxication will not enable a D to rely on a defence, whether the crime is specific or basic intent:

• Loss of self control

  • When considering s 54(1)(c) and deciding whether the normal person might do as the D did, the reaction must be measured against that of a sober person exercising powers of self-control (R v Morhall) – where a person is drunk it may be easier for a prosecutor to demonstrate that alcohol is the reason for loss of self-control, weakening the defence

• Diminished responsibility: no...