Intoxication
The General Rule
It was stated in R v Sheehan and Moore that “a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent”. Therefore, an intoxicated defendant must have been incapable of forming the mens rea for the crime. The House of Lords ruled in DPP v Majewski, that self-induced intoxication can only be raised as a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not to crimes of basic intent.
Basic and Specific Intent Crimes
A basic intent crime is one where the mens rea is intention or recklessness and does not exceed the actus reus. In simple terms this means that the defendant does not have to have foreseen any consequence, or harm, beyond that laid down in the definition of the actus reus. For example:
- The actus reus of malicious wounding or inflicting GBH (s20 OAPA 1861), is wounding or causing GBH and the mens rea is an intention to cause, or recklessness as to causing, some harm to the victim.
-
With the offence of “basic” criminal damage (contrary to s1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971), the actus reus comprises the damage or destruction of another’s property and the mens rea is an intention to damage or destroy, or recklessness as to damaging or destroying, property belonging to another.
Basic intent offences also include: common law assault and battery, s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and manslaughter.
A specific intent crime is one where in theory the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus, in the sense that the defendant has some ulterior purpose in mind. For example:
- The actus reus of wounding or causing GBH with intent to do some GBH (s18 OAPA 1861) is wounding or causing GBH. However, the defendant must be shown not only to have had the mens rea for wounding or GBH but also a further or “specific” mens rea, in the form of an intention to do some GBH or to prevent/resist a lawful arrest/detention.
-
In the “aggravated” offence of criminal damage (contrary to s1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971), the offence is committed where a defendant causes damage or destruction to property with the intention of endangering life. The actus reus is almost identical to that of the simple offence, the differentiating factor is the further or “specific” intent that the defendant must possess, to endanger life.
Specific intent offences also include, murder which requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant had malice aforethought, s9(1)(a) burglary and making off without payment (s3 Theft Act 1978).
Reasoning
With a specific intent crime, the defendant is so intoxicated that
the further intent cannot be formed.
With a basic intent crime, the defendant is reckless in becoming
intoxicated and this recklessness is substituted for the
recklessness needed as mens rea for the offence.
Intoxication by Hallucinogenic Drugs
A person can become intoxicated by drugs as well as by alcohol (and by both together!). The same rule in Majewski applies: R v Lipman – the defendant took LSD and, under the illusion that he was being attacked by snakes, killed the victim. The Court of Appeal saw no reason to distinguish between the effects of drugs and drunkenness.
Effect
The defendant’s liability will be reduced to a lesser basic intent
crime. For example, murder will be reduced to manslaughter and
s18 Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent will be reduced to s20
Wounding or Inflicting GBH.
Where there is no “lesser included” offence, the defendant will be
completely acquitted, e.g., theft.
Soporific Effect
Where a drug, which normally has a soporific (drowsy or sleepy) effect, leads to a defendant committing a crime, the usual rules will not apply. See R v Hardie, where the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge should have distinguished valium, a sedative, from other types of drugs, such as alcohol, which were widely known to have socially unacceptable side effects. The jury should decide if the defendant was reckless in taking the valium, in the sense that he had been aware of the risks associated with its consumption, although not necessarily aware of the risk that he would actually commit aggravated criminal damage.
“Dutch Courage” Intoxication
Where a defendant gets intoxicated in order to give him/herself the courage to commit a crime, intoxication will not be a defence at all: See the speech of Lord Denning in A-G for N. Ireland v Gallagher, where the defendant decided to kill his wife and bought a knife and drank a bottle of whisky. The House of Lords held that intoxication could not be a defence as the mens rea was formed before the killing took place.
Involuntary Intoxication
Under-estimating the strength or amount of alcohol consumed or its effect is not involuntary intoxication. See R v Allen where the defendant drank home-made wine unaware that it was extremely strong and committed sexual offences. The Court of Appeal held that this did not amount to involuntary intoxication. He was thus treated as if he were voluntarily intoxicated.
Involuntary intoxication is where a person does not know s/he was taking alcohol or an intoxicating drug. In such cases, there will only be a defence if the mens rea for a crime was not formed. See R v Kingston – The defendant, a paedophiliac homosexual, was photographed and audio-taped in a compromising situation with a boy. He claimed that his drink had been laced as part of a blackmail plot. The House of Lords held that involuntary intoxication was not a defence to a charge if it was proved that the defendant had the necessary intent when the offence was committed, even though he was not to blame for the intoxication. Lord Mustill regarded this present case as one of disinhibition, ie the drug did not create the desire to which the defendant gave way but enabled it to be released.
Intoxication and Self-defence
See page on self-defence.
Intoxication and Mistake
See page on mistake.