Intoxication; Specific & Basic Intent PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary Notes...

Description

LA 116 – Criminal Law Summary Notes Intoxication Intoxication

Voluntary Intoxication

Basic Intent

Involuntary Intoxication

Specific Intent

Non-dangerous Drugs Non-volitional consumption Prescription Medication

** Exam Questions: - Essay: 1. Only intoxication 2. Intoxication + MR 3. Impact on operation of other defences o Discuss within the context of principle/ police debate - Problem question: o Often involve intoxicated defendants o Complication is that combine with defences  Combine with any offence  Look for any mention of prescription drugs, alcohol/ illegal drugs by D  consider impact of intoxication on D’s liability A. Voluntary Intoxication o D knowingly consume recreational drugs/ alcohol, knowing their nature o Includes situation where D has knowingly consumed alcohol but is mistaken as to its strength/ where he was knowingly taken recreational drugs but if is unclear about effect on him o Only if D is so intoxicated that his ability to form MR is impaired that the law may take account of his voluntary intoxication o Depends upon the nature of the offence he has committed as a distinction is made between specific and basic intent Specific & Basic Intent Specific Intent MR: intention If D is intoxicated but still able to form requisite MR  liability unaffected by intoxication

If D is so intoxicated that he is incapable of forming requisite MR  no liability (but can be liable for different offences)

Sheehan & Moore [1975] (CA)

DPP v Beard [1920] (HL)

1 Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent

Basic Intent MR: intention & recklessness

D’s intoxication supplies MR of offences  his intoxication combined w/ AR will establish liability

DPP v Majewski [1977] (HL)

LA 116 – Criminal Law Summary Notes

Key Case: AG Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] (HL) Issue: Dutch Courage Facts: D decides to kill his wife. He intoxicated himself with a bottle of alcohol before killing his wife to give himself the courage to kill. Argued that he was so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming intention to kill. Legal Principle: Held that a person who forms intention to kill whilst sober and drinks to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing whilst intoxicated  still liable ** NOTE: - AR & MR must coincide - But, applying the principle would result in acquittal in Dutch Courage cases D would not be able to form MR due to intoxication (One distinction to make) - Policy has prevailed as a person who forms MR & negates that w/ intoxication in order to commit the offence  held liable ‘Drunk intent is still an intent’ Specific Intent - E.g. Murder o Murder can only be committed intentionally o The jury must see whether D was so intoxicated that they were incapable or lack of capacity to form the necessary MR, or intent the result so no MR for the offence, not guilty o If the D was intoxicated but not so intoxicated where there is still able to or have the capacity, jury will see if they were still able to form MR o An intention formed in drink or under influence of drugs remains an intention o If specific intent, can prevent D from forming MR or D can show then they can use it as a defence Basic Intent - Policy considerations are evident in relation to voluntary intoxication and basic intent - D cannot argue that he failed to recognise a risk of harm because of intoxication - Voluntary intoxication = recklessness = basic intent so intoxication cannot be a defence o If D voluntary intoxicated, then look at the type of offence, can it be committed recklessly or intentionally? o Intentionally = specific intent o Recklessly = basic intent - Necessary to distinguish whether D has taken alcohol or illegal drugs from those where D has taken lawful substances, such as medicines prescribed by a doctor o Alcohol and Illegal drugs o Rules still applies even if is low alcohol level  R v Allen [1988]  D was drinking his friend's home-made wine, which he believed had only a little alcohol in it.  Held to be voluntarily intoxicated  Would be different if he ha though that what he was drinking was a non-alcohol fruit punch, which in fact had alcohol (or drugs) in it = involuntarily intoxication  A person who is addicted to drugs or alcohol is treated as voluntarily taking the substances, unless they can show they had no control at all over taking them

2 Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent

LA 116 – Criminal Law Summary Notes



It is possible that a drug addict or alcoholic could rely on a defence of insanity or diminished responsibility (on a charge of murder) Key Case: DPP v Majewski [1977] (HL) Issue: Basic intent, intoxication Facts: D attacked a police officer whilst voluntarily intoxicated. He argued that he was so intoxicated that he could not form the requisite MR. Legal Principle: Effect of intoxication on D’s state of mind was only relevant to crimes of specific intent. In basic intent, D’s recklessness in talking drugs that rendered his behaviour uncontrolled & unpredictable was in itself sufficient to substitute for MR of offence

∴ MR of offence includes recklessness, satisfied by D’s intoxication as it is reckless to render oneself into a state where behaviour cannot be controlled and crimes may be committed ** open to criticism - It replaces MR w/ abstract recklessness associated w/ becoming intoxicated  means that all drunken people will be walking around w/ MR for all basic intent offences & thus will be liable if they happen to commit AR whilst drunk Read: 1. Gardner (1994) – in depth consideration of the implication of Majewski 2. Virgo (1993) – summary of Law Commission proposals for reforming of l f i t xi ti Key Case: R v Lipman [1970] Issue: Basic Intent, intoxication Facts: D was hallucinating after taking LSD and believed he was being attacked by snakes and descending to the centre of the earth. Whilst in this state, he killed a girl by cramming bed sheets into her mouth. Legal Principle: His intoxication could not be used to demonstrate that he lacked MR for murder as murder is a crime of specific intent. His intoxication could not be a defence to manslaughter as it is a crime of basic intent. It was further found that manslaughter required proof of MR to the extent that a sober and reasonable person could have foreseen the risks of taking drugs and some harm resulting.

-

Basic Intent x Specific intent o Memorise the type of offences for which intent o Specific intent  Serious offence  But if D was intoxicated and was unable to form the necessary MR, hence cannot be charged as murder or under s18 then D can be charged as Manslaughter or under s20  There is a fall back on the offence  Theft is exception o Basic Intent  Rape/ sexual assault  There is no fall back on the offence that the Court can use  Public protection logic here

3 Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent

LA 116 – Criminal Law Summary Notes

o

E.g. if the D committed murder and there is no charged with murder, hence no liability then this will be unfair. So, murder cannot be categorised as basic intent (there is no fall back to the offence)

Specific intent

Basic intent

Murder

Manslaughter

S18 OAPA 1861 (intentional GBH)

S20 OAPA 1861 (‘malicious’ GBH)

Theft

Assault/battery/s47 Criminal damage Rape/sexual assault

B. Involuntary Intoxication o 3 categories 1. Non-volitional consumption of drugs and/ or alcohol  Situations whereby D is unaware that he has taken a particular intoxicant  Does not cover situations whereby D is aware that he is drinking alcohol but is mistaken about its strength: R v Allen [1988] (CA)  Falls within voluntary intoxication as D is aware of the nature of what he is ingesting even if he is unclear of the strength 2. Use of prescription medication in accordance w/ instructions  D will not be liable for any adverse/ excessive reactions provided he acted in accord w/ recommendations for use of medication  Medicine prescribed by doctor; D will be voluntarily intoxicated if he took the medicine in a way NOT prescribed by the doctor (e.g. by exceeding the stated dose)  Quick [1973] 3. Volitional consumption of non-dangerous drug provided D is not reckless  Developed as a result of R v Hardie [1985] (CA)  Drug that was taken voluntarily will result in involuntary intoxication if it is of a non-dangerous nature and not known to cause unpredictable/ dangerous behaviour, provided D was NOT reckless in taking the drug

Did D form MR for offence charged? No If involuntary intoxication prevents D from forming MR  no liability

4 Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent

Yes If D formed MR for offence even though he was intoxicated  intoxication

LA 116 – Criminal Law Summary Notes

Key Case: R v Hardie [1985] (CA) Issue: Involuntary intoxication Facts: D was given some out-of-date valium tablets. He was told that it would calm his nerves and do him no harm. He became intoxicated and caused a fire. Legal Principle: Held to be involuntary intoxicated. Did not fall within voluntary intoxication thus the Majewski presumption of recklessness would not apply. Unlike recreational drugs and alcohol, which were known to cause unpredictable behaviour, valium was known to its sedative effects. - Consumption of non-dangerous drugs would amount to involuntary intoxication unless the consumption itself was reckless

Key Case: R v Kingston [1995] (HL) Issue: Involuntary intoxication, MR - Liability is determined in cases of involuntary intoxication is further demonstrated by Kingston Facts: D was drugged w/o his knowledge by men who wished to blackmail him and committed an act of indecency w/ a young boy who had also been drugged. He claimed that the drugs eroded his ability to resist the paedophilic urges that he manages to control whilst sober. Legal Principle: Though D’s will was weakened by drugs administered w/o his knowledge, he was still aware of his situation and knew his actions were wrong  had MR for offence

∴

involuntary intoxication only absolves D;s inability if it renders him incapable of forming MR, not if it caused him to commit an offence he would not have committed if sober. ** Intoxication whether voluntary or involuntary can avoid criminal liability only if D can prove that intoxication has prevented D in forming the necessary MR Read: 1. Gardner.S, ‘The importance of Majewski’ (1999) 2. Virgo.G, ‘Law Commission Consultation Paper on intoxication & Criminal Liability: Reconciling Principle & policy’ (1993) 3. Williams. R, ‘Voluntary Intoxication, Sexual Assault & Future of Majewski’ (2007)

5 Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent...