Intoxication in English law
Intoxication in English law is a circumstance which may alter the capacity of a defendant to form
Voluntary intoxication
The
Specific and basic intent
In Majewski, Lord Elwyn-Jones, giving judgement, indicated that a crime was one of specific intent if the mens rea went further than the actus reus; in other words, that the crime was one of ulterior intent.[2][4] This makes sense in the case of burglary and of criminal damage with intent to endanger life, where the intent need not be carried out, and which have been judged crimes of specific intent.[4] However, this fails to explain why murder is considered a crime of specific intent, despite the fact that its mental aspect is equal or less than the actus reus requirement of causing death.[4]
Case law has established that murder,
Manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, kidnapping and false imprisonment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault have all been judged crimes of basic intent.[6][9]
The court in Majewski refers to intoxication as a
Neither possibility has been explored in the common law. Accordingly, it only possible to say that the defence cannot argue that intoxication provides a defence, where recklessness has been shown on the fact, in crimes of basic intent. It is possible that the prosecution would be allowed, in certain circumstances, to dispense with the original mens rea entirely and rely solely on the voluntary intoxication to provide the fault element.[14]
Dutch courage
While generally an intoxicated individual cannot form specific intent to perform a crime, an exception to this rule is provided by the case of
If a man, whilst sane and sober, forms an intention to kill and makes preparation for it, knowing it is a wrong thing to do, and then gets himself drunk so as to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing, and whilst drunk carries out his intention, he cannot rely on this self-induced drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder, nor even as reducing it to manslaughter.[16]
Involuntary intoxication
Unlike cases where a defendant has intoxicated himself voluntarily, the courts have taken a far more lenient view of defendants who become intoxicated through no fault of their own. Involuntary intoxication is not necessarily a full defence to criminal charges, as there are several qualifications to what can be called 'involuntary', some of which have met criticism and calls for reform. Nevertheless, a defendant who successfully argues involuntary intoxication will not be held culpable for actions they carried out while intoxicated.[17]
The first qualification to this is that a defendant cannot claim they are involuntarily intoxicated simply because they were misinformed or wrong about the alcohol content of what they were drinking.[18] Thus in R v Allen[19] a man who committed indecent assault and buggery was convicted, with his argument rejected that he did not realise the wine he was drinking was strongly alcoholic.[18]
A second limitation imposed by the courts is that the defendant must have been exceptionally intoxicated in order to argue he had no mens rea to commit a crime.
See also
Notes
- ^ Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard [1920] A.C. 479
- ^ a b c Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski [1977] A.C. 443
- ^ Simester et al. (2010). p. 686.
- ^ a b c d Simester et al. (2010). p. 688.
- ^ Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125, at 31
- ^ a b c d Simester et al. (2010). p. 689.
- ^ a b Ormerod, ed. (2005). p. 279.
- ^ Ormerod, ed. (2005). p. 276.
- ^ Ormerod, ed. (2005). p. 280.
- ^ Ormerod, ed. (2005). pp. 276–277.
- ^ a b c Ormerod, ed. (2005). p. 277.
- ^ a b Simester et al. (2010). pp. 691–692.
- ^ Ormerod, ed. (2005). p. 278.
- ^ Simester et al. (2010). p. 692.
- ^ A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
- ^ [1963] AC 349, at 382
- ^ Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 25: "Involuntary intoxication", paragraph 17 (5th edition)
- ^ a b Jefferson, p. 280
- ^ R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
- ^ Jefferson, p. 281
- ^ R v Beard [1920] AC 479
- ^ R v Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355
- ^ Ormerod, p. 275
References
- Jefferson, Michael (2006). Criminal Law. ISBN 1-4058-1225-7.
- Ormerod, David (2005). Smith and Hogan Criminal Law. ISBN 0-406-97730-5.