Intoxication defence
Intoxication defense refers to the legal argument that a person's state of intoxication at the time of committing a crime should be considered as a mitigating factor in determining their criminal liability. It can be used to argue that the individual was not in control of their actions due to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, thus impacting their ability to form criminal intent.
8 Key excerpts on "Intoxication defence"
eBook - ePub- Claudia Carr, Maureen Johnson(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Although this is very restrictive, it allows necessity as a defence back into English law. Intoxication Intoxication it not a true defence under English law. It is a denial of the mens rea of the offence. A defendant may claim that he was so intoxicated – by drugs or alcohol – that he was simply unable to form the necessary mens rea required. Although this may sound like a reasonable claim as it is important that actus reus and mens rea are present, a general application of intoxication as a defence would lead to some obvious problems! A criminal would simply be able to intentionally take alcohol or drugs before committing a crime, and then if he got caught would be able to claim a defence. Most people would not feel this was appropriate and the law would be brought into disrepute. English law has found a way around this tension between lack of mens rea and public confidence by way of the rule in Majewski [1977] AC 443. WARNING! This rule applies only to voluntary intoxication! The rule developed in this case states that intoxication can be pleaded as a denial of mens rea, but only to offences of Specific Intent. These are offences which require intention as the mens rea, such as murder or s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Intoxication cannot be pleaded to offences of Basic Intent. These are offences which require either intention or recklessness as a mens rea, such as s 20 or s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In these cases, said Lord Elwyn-Jones in Majewski : His course of conduct in reducing himself by drink and drugs to that condition in my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent...
eBook - ePub- Gavin Dingwall(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Willan(Publisher)
...‘Involuntary’ intoxication is a convenient and widely used phrase in criminal law but its use is not without problems. This is because case law has restricted it to situations where the defendant did not realise that he or she was drinking alcohol. It does not cover other situations where arguably the intoxication was involuntary; perhaps most notably if the offender was addicted to alcohol. Nonetheless, with this caveat in place and with the absence of a satisfactory alternative, the phrase involuntary intoxication will be used where necessary in this chapter. The criminal law distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication on the basis that the latter carries no degree of culpability and accordingly should attract no criminal liability (see further Horder 1993; Smith and Wilson 1993; Sullivan 1994; Wilson 1995). As this position appears universal (Ross v HM Advocate 1991 SLT 564; R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353; S v Johnson 1969 (1) SA 201) and principled, the rest of the chapter is concerned with the more common occurrence of voluntary intoxication and any subsequent reference to intoxication in this chapter should be taken to mean voluntary intoxication. It should be noted again that the degree of intoxication is paramount. In Kingston it was held that the defendant could be held criminally liable. Even though the intoxication was involuntary in that it was administered without his knowledge by a third party, the degree of intoxication was not sufficient for him to be unable to form the required mens rea for the offence. Intoxication and other defences Second, intoxication can also become an issue when the defendant raises a defence to a charge. He may, for example, plead self defence on the basis that he mistakenly believed that he was about to be attacked and this mistake was due to the fact that he had been drinking (e.g. in the English case of R v O’Connor [1991] Crim LR 135)...
eBook - ePub- Jacqueline Martin(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...If he knows he has been reckless and automation is not a defence (Clarke (2009)). 9.3 Intoxication 1 This covers intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances, such as glue-sniffing. 2 Intoxication does not provide a defence as such, but is relevant to whether or not the defendant has the required mens rea for the offence. If he does not have the required mens rea because of his intoxicated state he may be not guilty. 3 Whether the defendant is guilty or not depends on whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent and whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. 9.3.1 Voluntary intoxication 1 Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence (Beard (1920), Sheehan and Moore (1975)). 2 However, if the defendant, despite his intoxicated state, still has the necessary mens rea, then he is guilty of the offence. The intoxication does not provide a defence (A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)). 3 Where the offence charged is one of basic intent, intoxication is not a defence. ‘It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea ’ (Majewski (1977), Metropolitan Police Comr v Caldwell (1982)). 4 However, the prosecution must prove that the defendant would have foreseen the risk had he not been intoxicated (Richardson and Irwin (1999)). 5 Heard (2007) decided that voluntary intoxication was not a defence to s 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual assault by touching) if the touching was deliberate. Section 3 was a basic intent offence. 9.3.2 Involuntary intoxication 1 This covers situations where the defendant did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance; for example, where a soft drink has been ‘laced’ with alcohol or the unexpected effect of prescribed drugs. 2 The test is: Did the defendant have the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence? If so, he will be guilty...
eBook - ePub- Ilias Bantekas, Susan Nash(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...The person must act ‘reasonably’. This will depend on relevant external circumstances, but the Court is not excluded from assessing the personal state and characteristics of the accused on the basis of domestic law permitting the evaluation of such subjective criteria, in accordance with Arts 31(3) and 21(1)(c). Similarly, the degree of force applied is predicated on the objective test of proportionality. 3.5 INTOXICATION Legal systems usually distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Moreover, English law differentiates, for the purposes of the present discussion, between mens rea offences and non- mens rea offences. The former, known also as specific intent offences, are characterised by the requirement of intention in the definition of their mental element, where adducing evidence of voluntary intoxication will negate mens rea, although voluntary intoxication does not generally excuse criminal liability. For crimes of negligence, strict liability and crimes of recklessness, adducing such evidence will be ineffective. Likewise, involuntary intoxication does not generally excuse criminal liability, unless the effect of the involuntary intoxication is to negate the mens rea of the underlying crime, but this would find application only with regard to crimes of specific or basic intent. 72 A claim of involuntary intoxication would be unsuccessful with regard to crimes of negligence and strict liability. 73 The ICC Statute does not purport to make this distinction, but it is clear that all the offences in the Statute require some form of intent, although depending on the form of participation in these offences strict liability may suffice. 74 The terms of the defence of intoxication contained in Art 31(1)(b) are simple, and the provision does not make such a distinction of mens rea and strict liability offences. Intoxication will be considered involuntary under English law if it is coerced, 75 or where the accused entirely mistakes what he is consuming...
eBook - ePub- Routledge(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...For example, the defendant’s drink has been ‘spiked’. Where the intoxication is involuntary the defendant will be entitled to a defence if the intoxication means that the defendant did not form the mens rea of the offence (R v Kingston [1994]). If the defendant is mistaken as to the strength of the alcohol, this is voluntary intoxication (R v Allen [1988]). It should be noted that, where the defendant deliberately becomes intoxicated with the intention of giving himself confidence in order to commit an offence, the defence will not be allowed (AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]). Voluntary intoxication This is where the intoxication is self-induced, the defendant knowingly consumes an intoxicant. Where the intoxication is voluntary, intoxication is only relevant if the offence is one of ‘specific intent’ (DDP v Beard [1920]). If the crime is one of specific intent then intoxication is only a defence if it means that the defendant did not form the mens rea required. Voluntary intoxication is always irrelevant in relation to crimes of basic intent. The specific/basic distinction Unfortunately, there is no clear overarching principle for distinguishing crimes of specific and basic intent. The term ‘specific intent’ was first coined by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Birkenhead in DPP v Beard [1920]. He recognised if the drunkenness had meant that the defendant did not form the needed mens rea, this would have been taken into account since ‘specific intent is an essential element in the offence’ of murder. Later judgments gave the term ‘specific intent’ a specialised meaning which Lord Birkenhead probably never intended. Judges drew a distinction between crimes of specific and basic intent. In DDP v Majewski [1977], the House of Lords held that intoxication was no defence since assault is an offence of basic intent...
eBook - ePub- Rodger Geary(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...Evidence of drunkenness is introduced to make the mistake more credible. Alcohol and ‘Dangerous Drugs’ Intoxication, negating mens rea, resulting from the voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs generally recognised to be ‘dangerous’ will constitute a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not to those of basic intent (DPP v Majewski (1984)). Intoxication Other than by Alcohol or ‘Dangerous’ Drugs Intoxication, negating mens rea, resulting from the voluntary consumption of ‘non-dangerous’ drugs will constitute a defence not only in relation to crimes of specific intent, but also in relation to those of basic intent, provided the defendant has not been reckless in consuming them (R v Bailey (1983); R v Hardie (1984)). The Specific/Basic Intent Distinction Unfortunately, there is no clear overarching principle for distinguishing between crimes of specific and basic intent. However, it is suggested, as a pragmatic guide, that crimes which can be committed recklessly will be those of basic intent and those requiring evidence of intent will be specific intent (MPC v Caldwell (1982)). Involuntary Intoxication Involuntary intoxication which negates mens rea will be a defence to crimes of both basic and specific intent. The decision of the Court of Appeal, in R v Kingston (1993), that the defence will be available even if the defendant formed an intention to commit the offence, provided there is evidence that he would not have done so but for the drink was reversed on appeal to the House of Lords. Their Lordships held that a drunken intent was still an intent (R v Kingston (1994)). However, if the defendant knows that he is drinking alcohol, but is mistaken as to its strength, the rules relating to voluntary intoxication apply (R v Allen (1988)). The Compromise Between Principle and Policy The existing law relating to voluntary intoxication can be criticised as representing an unsatisfactory compromise between principle and policy...
eBook - ePub- (Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Straightforward Publishing Digital(Publisher)
...A defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind rendering him incapable of knowing what he was doing, must be proved. Non-Insane Automatism If an outside factor causes the defendant to act like an automaton, this may be raised as the defence of automatism. Non-insane automatism results in a complete acquittal if proved. The essence of the defence is that the defendant’s actions are completely involuntary. In Hill v Baxter 1958, acts committed after a series of blows to the head were seen as examples of automatism. In another case, Whoolley 1997, the defendant admitted driving very close to a car and a fit of sneezing caused him to crash into this vehicle. The act of sneezing was seen as involuntary and constituted a defence of automatism. There are limits to the defence and each case is obviously considered on its merit. Intoxication If a defendant has voluntarily put himself into a state of intoxication then this will generally not be seen as a defence. However, whilst voluntary intoxication is not a defence in crimes of basic intent such as assault, manslaughter and rape, it might be allowed as a full or partial defence in other crimes such as: • Aggravated criminal damage with intention of endangering life • Theft • GBH or malicious wounding • Murder, where there is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. All these crimes, with the exception of murder, treated as a special case, require some further intention to be established in addition to the basic offence. Involuntary intoxication In the case of involuntary intoxication, where the offender was given drink or drugs without his consent or knowledge, a defence might be raised both in cases of specific intent and also basic intent. In some cases, the courts have considered the side effects of drugs as a defence. In the case of Hardie 1985, the defendant had finished with his girlfriend and he became very upset and took valium to calm his nerves...
eBook - ePub- Steven Yannoulidis(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...I have argued that an attempt to rely on current scientific research as a means of formulating judicial principles results in a failure to appreciate the true nature of the defence. The defence of mental impairment is not an attempt to ascertain whether an accused is suffering from a mental illness. Finally, Mitchell and Robinson approach the issue from the perspective of an accused’s prior fault in becoming intoxicated. There is an intuitive attractiveness to the notion of prior fault as a means of delimiting an accused’s responsibility for drug-induced psychosis. To this extent meta-responsibility will result in an accused who has consented to his or her incapacity being held responsible and criminally sanctioned. I have argued that it is by using the judgment of responsibility aspect of the disease of the mind enquiry that a principled response may be provided to the question of drug-induced psychosis. Consequently, I have endeavoured to show that where an accused has brought about his or her, own incapacity in a rational and voluntary fashion, he or she should be held responsible. The correlation of rational and voluntary conduct to a particular category of liability is the purpose served by the judgment of responsibility. Such a purpose is served by holding an accused who has engaged in voluntary drug use resulting in a state of psychosis responsible where he or she has intended or foreseen, or ought to have foreseen, that such drug use may lead to psychosis and the commission of an offence. This chapter has addressed the scope of the insanity defence by considering the disease of the mind element of the defence...
