Criminal Law - Intoxication

• Report rights infringement
• published: 29 Jul 2016
• views: 1587

A video lecture on intoxication for law students studying criminal law on the LLB or GDL. Intoxication comes down to three key questions: 1) Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary? 2) If voluntary was it a crime of specific or basic intent? 3) Is the drug one that is known to cause people to become aggressive? The key principle underlining all of this is that intoxication is not a defence as such but more of a denial of mens rea for an offence. The onus of proof for proving mens rea lies with the Crown as per Sheehan [1975]. Involuntary intoxication is narrowly defined as per Allen [1988]. The most famous case for involuntary intoxication is Kingston [1994] which notes that a lack of mens rea is still required. Meanwhile the question for offences involving negligence is would the reasonable person have acted in the same way having suffered involuntary intoxication? Voluntary intoxication requires a distinction between crimes of specific and basic intent with D being not guilty if he did not form the mens rea for a crime of specific intent. The definition of a crime of specific intent has been hotly debated over the years in cases such as Majewski [1973] (ulterior intent/when the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus) and Heard [2007] (purposive intent) but the best approach is to look at a range of examples: Specific intent: murder, grievous bodily harm (GBH), theft, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods, criminal damage with intent. Basic intent: rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, assault and criminal damage through recklessness. When looking at the actual substance causing intoxication we first ask is it common knowledge that using the drug is liable to make the user become aggressive? If not then the test is one of recklessness as per Griffiths LJ in Bailey [1983]. Intoxication is not relevant when there are statutory defences as in Jaggard v Dickinson [1981]. Generally a mistake arising from voluntary intoxication cannot be relied on as per O'Grady [1987] and Hatton [2005]. Dutch courage is also no defence as per A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963].