Intoxication
If the defendant was acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol, he may be able to
rely on the defence of intoxication. This defence negates MR but as a matter of public
policy the courts are reluctant to apply the defence.
There are two types of intoxication – voluntary and involuntary intoxication. The
defendant is at fault if it’s a situation of voluntary intoxication. Most cases involve
voluntary intoxication.
Involuntary Intoxication
This is a situation where the defendant is not aware that he is consuming alcohol or
drugs or in situations that the defendant is not at fault in taking a drug ( eg- prescription
drugs).
R v Allen – defendant believes that the content of the alcohol is much lower than it is.
Courts concluded this does not amount to involuntary intoxication, in fact this is
voluntary intoxication
Where the defendant is involuntarily intoxicated, it will only apply as a defence if he
does not have the necessary mens rea. As such even if he is involuntarily intoxicated but
he is able to form the men rea, this will not be a defence. A drugged intent or a drunken
intent is still a valid intent – R v Sheehan and Moore, R v Kingston.
R v Kingston –Defendant’s drink was laced with drugs. He indecently assaulted a 15 year
old boy. Defendant argued intoxication and he remembered nothing. The courts
concluded that he had the necessary MR although he was intoxicated. A drugged intent
was a still a valid intent – Sheehan and Moore was applied here.
R v Hardie – took valium tablets prescribed to his girlfriend. He sat fire to a wardrobe in
the bedroom. Defendant conviction was quashed because wrong direction to the jury
was given. COA was of the opinion that whether defendant’s conduct was reckless in
taking the valium pills. The jury should consider the fact that the tablets in its prescribed
quantity are lawful and the defendant was unaware the effect of the drugs on him. In
fact he was informed that the tablets were not harmful and the usual effect of drugs
which is used as a sedative
Voluntary Intoxication
Intoxication that falls outside involuntary intoxication will be considered as voluntary
intoxication. In other words, the defendant is aware he is consuming intoxicating
substance or he is at fault for consuming the substance.
DPP v Majewski – Defendant was charged with S.47. He had a mixture of drug and
alcohol. He argued that his act was as a result of intoxication and he did not know what
he was doing, HOL rejected the defence and laid down rule :-
Voluntary Intoxication is not a defence for a basic intent crime but can be a
defence for a specific intent crime
S. 47 is basic intent crime and as such Majewski would not be able to rely upon it.
The courts assume that being voluntary intoxicated means that the defendant is reckless
therefore he can satisfy the relevant mens rea.
Basic intent crimes are crimes that can be committed with a lesser MR than intention –
eg :- reckless. Type of offences include :- Assault, Battery, S.47,S.20, Manslaughter
Specific intent crimes requires intention as MR. Example :- Murder, S.18
Voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crime but the defendant must be
so intoxicated that he is unable to form the mens rea. In other words, if he is drunk and
still able to form mens rea, then he is still liable. Drunken intent is still a valid intent – R v
Sheehan and Moore
Dutch Courage
Dutch courage involves situations where a person takes intoxicating substance to gain
confidence or courage to commit offence. This is essentially voluntary intoxication.
The principle is that if it a situation of dutch courage, the courts will not allow the
defence of intoxication. See AGNI v Gallagher – defendant has the required MR before
committing the crime and therefore should not allowed to rely on the defence.
Involuntary Intoxication A defence for most offences but defendant
must be so intoxicated that he cannot form
the required MR.
Voluntary Intoxication Not a defence for basic intent crime. Can be a
defence for specific intent crime but
defendant must be so intoxicated that he
cannot form the MR
Dutch Courage Not a defence
Specific Intent Crime Basic Intent Crime
Murder Assault. Battery
S.18 OAPA 1861 S.47 OAPA 1861
S.20 OAPA 1861
1(1) CDA 1971
Manslaughter
Rape