INTOXICATION
There are two types of defenses, failure to proof defence and the other is Affirmative
defence. The affirmative defence is the defence in which defendant does not question
the elements of the offence but justify or excuse his conduct on the bases of the
circumstances in which he acted. The failure to proof defence it the defence in which
defendant questioned the element of the offence (actus reus and mensrea). The failure
to proof defence include involuntary act, insanity and intoxication. The affirmative
defence include self defence, duress and necessity. It is state in which person in take
alcohol or drugs which effect his mental and physical abilities. There is not a defence
but we can say it a anti defence. If the person is intoxicated at the conduct of the
offence, then it will increase the sereneness of the offence but it cannot use as a excuse
for an conduct. It affects the evidential basis for the claim of mensrea. If we see that the
case of Lipmann, where a defendant was convicted under constructive manslaughter
not of murder, this is due to his intoxication of LSD Drug, prosecution could not prove
the mensrea for murderer in this case. There are two forms of intoxication; first
voluntary intoxication and second involuntary intoxication.
It is defence of evidential value not to as excuse and justification for an offence but it
can sustain Defendant claim the he has not a mensrea. Even involuntary intoxication is
not a defence to strict liability crime. For example, in the case of Blakey and Sutton
1991, a defendant was involuntary intoxicated because his friend spiked his soft drink
with an alcohol. He drove his car and during this he stopped by the police, he was in a
state of intoxication, then he was guilty with the offence of driving with excess alcohol,
he raised the defence but rejected by the court for the strict liability crimes it is needed
to show the faulty conduct. If the person has mens rea then he will be convicted even if
he did not do this if he was sober. In case of Kingston 1995, in which Defendant is
convicted for sexually assaulted a n underage boy when he was involuntary intoxicated
by the third person. He appealed on the ground that he would not have commited this
offence if he was sober.
The house of Lords overturns the decision of Court of Appeal, which was in his favor of
him. The house of Lord held that he was convicted because since the effect of
intoxication was to disinhibit Defendant rather than to prevent him from forming mens
rea for an assault. It is not a excuse and justification in criminal law that defendant was
unwillingly induced to commit an offence that he did not have committed otherwise. This
reasoning was also follow in the case of R v Aidid 2021, in the case of Sheehan and
Moore 1974 in dismissing the defendant’s appeal, Court of Appeal suggested that, ‘the
mere fact that the defendant’s mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in
which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided
that the necessary intent was there, for a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent’.
The argument of intoxication in front is only effect the presence of mens rea for conduct
in defendant’s mind. If there is voluntary intoxication, it cannot be used for this in case of
crimes of basic intent, a crime in which prosecution does not need to show the specific
for the crime. For example, the crime of arson is crime of basic intent it does not require
the specific intent. But the crime of murder need the proof of specific intent such as
death or Grievous bodily harm. In the case of DPP v Beard (1920), in this case a
defendant in a drunk state raped a young girl, who died of suffocation as a result of
defendant putting his on her mouth. The court convicted him for murder. His conviction
was quashed for the reason that he was missing the specific intent for the murder. The
conviction of murder substituted with conviction of manslaughter.
Ina charge of murder, if the jury the satisfied the specific that is needed for the murder
then defendant cannot be convicted for murder, but nevertheless the unlawful has been
committed for this reason, the defendant will be convicted for manslaughter. One
addition to this rule is that if defendant is intoxicated in order to gain the courage for the
crime of specific intent, then will not use this as a defence (having no mensrea) even for
the crime of specific intent. This approve in the case approve in the case of Northern
Ireland v Gallagher 1963.
The defence of involuntary intoxication can used as a defence for all crimes but the
voluntarily intoxication cannot be used as defence in all crime except the crimes of
specific intent, in the case of Majewski 1977, it is suggested about voluntarily
intoxication that, ‘the intoxication of a person by intoxicant which takes otherwise than
properly for medical purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or
may be an intoxicant’. In the case of Hardie 1985, Defendant was convicted of arson,
defendant argued he did not remember the stating of fire due to his intoxicated state (as
he took valium as his girlfriend advise him in order to calm himself). The court of appeal
quashed his conviction and dealt his intoxication state as involuntarily intoxication.
In the case of O’Grady 1987, in which defendant kill his friend, with whom he had been
drinking whole day, on waking up he believed that his friend was trying to kill him. The
Court of Appeal suggested that if the mistaken belief, of the defendant is caused by the
self-induced intoxication, which is about the use of necessary force for self defence,
then defence of self cannot be relied upon it. The case of O’Connor 1991, the court of
appeal also suggested the approach as previous case. This defence cannot be even in
the offences of specific intent.
In the case of Jaggard v Dickinson 1980, defendant after a drinking whole night, went to
his friend and, failed to rose her, broke in her house believing she would have her friend
consent. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong house. The crown court accepted her
excuse of believing in the consent. The honest belief of consent can be entertained with
intoxication. The are no requirement of showing that the belief is reasonable. This case
has doubtful authority in the case of Magee v Crown prosecution Service 2014, where
the defendant failed to stop after a accident.