Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Intoxication 2012


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Intoxication 2012

  1. 1. General Defences:Intoxication Miss M. Hart G153 [2012]
  2. 2. You already know quite a lot! Complete the following paragraph to show how much you actually already know (and yes... This includes knowledge from last year)The courts have decided that there are two types of intent in intoxication – and . Thegeneral rule for a basic intent crime, such as , is that by taking the intoxicant, D is andso has the mens rea. This is illustrated by the case of , where even though he had no idea what he wasactually doing, the taking of the LSD would be enough. However, there is a clear exception where the substance hasa different effect on D than anticipated as in the case of .A intent crime, like is one which requires intent only as the mens rea. For thesecrimes, D may have a defence if he was so intoxicated that he could not atall. The courts have said that even if it was self-induced, D may have a defence as in the case of wherehe injected himself with insulin and then did not eat.If D is involuntarily intoxicated, then he may have a defence, but only if he never had the mens rea to start with. Thecourts have made this clear in , where the Private detective drugged D and helped him to abusea young boy.Kingston manslaughter Bailey specific Lipman basic reckless murder Hardie form a mens rea specific
  3. 3. So, let’s build on this: The basics An intoxicant is.... It is not a ‘true defence’ because.... When argued it is because .... Or.... It is governed very strictly by....The general rule is....
  4. 4. Intoxication: Why such an issue?2006/7 1,087,000 violent incidents took place where V believed D to be under the influenceCost of alcohol related crime is put at £7.3 bn.
  5. 5. Strict LiabilityCan you even argue Intoxication? s.5 Road Traffic Act 1985 Blakely & Sutton v DPP 1991 How far may this case illustrate that public policy is more important than individual injustice?
  6. 6. Specific or basic intent? Highlight the offences:Colour One: The basic intent offencesColour Two: The specific intent offences
  7. 7. So, how do we tell Student Tasks: the difference? Read the extract and answer the following questions in as much detail as possible. Usually the words of the Act are enough... But.... 1. Following precedent, should he have been able to rely on self-induced intoxication? Why/why not?his is really refers to what you have said R v Heard 2007 above. s.3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 2. What are the facts of the case?(1) A person (A) commits an offence if –(a) He intentionally touches another 3. According to the judges, was it a person (B) specific or basic intent crime?(b) The touching is sexual(c) B does not consent to the touching, and(d) A does not reasonably believe that B 4. Was he successful in his appeal? consents 5. What do you think that the courts took into account in making their decision?
  8. 8. Voluntary Intoxication Specific IntentDPP v Beard “If D was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required, he could not 1920 be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved.” “a drunken intent isSheehan and nevertheless anMoore 1975 intent”
  9. 9. Problem: Dutch Courage?AG for NI v Gallagher 1963 Some interesting obiter... Man stabs a man, thinking it is a theatre dummy Denning: Why would both DD have a defence of intoxication to Nurse at a their offences? christening puts a baby on the fire instead of logs.
  10. 10. Voluntary IntoxicationBasic Intent Offences Why is intoxication not a defence to these crimes? Key case: DPP v Majewski Key Case: “illogical though the present law may be, it represents a compromise Test for between the imposition of liability upon inebriates in completerecklessness: disregard of their condition (on the alleged ground that it was brought on voluntarily) and the total exculpation required by D’s actual state of mind at the time he committed the harm in issue.”
  11. 11. More (Basic) RulesR v Fotheringham R v Richardson & Irwin but Other issues R v Hardie R v Allen Different effect? Strength of drink?
  12. 12. Plenary:How much have you learnt this lesson? How many of these sentences can you complete without notes? A. R v Heard has created confusion because... B. Intoxication is not a true defence because... C. D generally may have a defence to a specific intent crime because... D. If D takes an intoxicant for Dutch courage... E. The key case on basic intent is...
  13. 13. Involuntary Intoxication General Rules: If the drink is spiked... But: What if it has a very different effect?But: What if it merely removesboundaries in your behaviour?
  14. 14. Key Case:R v Kingston 1994 1. What are the facts of the offences? 2. What were D’s impulses, the resistance to which was lowered by the intoxicant? 3. Name two of the problems with the Court of Appeals quashing of the conviction. 4. Who has the burden of proof? 5. What is meant by a ‘spurious’ defence? 6. Do you agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords? Why?
  15. 15. Starter:Can you match the cases to their crime and their area? Case? Offence?Specific Basic R v Fotheringham manslaughter murderR v Lipman R v Heard rape DPP v Majewski Sexual assault ABHAG for NI v Gallagher
  16. 16. Intoxicated Mistake This is where as a result of D’s intoxication, he made a mistake as to a key fact or to the amount of force used. The rule is...Specific intent The rule is... Basic intent Can you name these mistaken cases?
  17. 17. Force:A particular problem? ISSUE: What if, due to your intoxication, you misjudge the amount of force you need to use... Or even that you needed to use any to start with!” Student Task: This area of the law needs to balance the individual’s right to use honest necessary force, with the rights of the innocent victim who should be protected from injury or death by another’s drunken mistake. Who should win? Why?
  18. 18. The approach of the CourtsR v O’Grady R v Hutton Jaggard v Dickinson s.5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 “if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented... it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not ifR v O’Connor it is honestly held.”
  19. 19. Consolidation:D’you get the AO1? Using your understanding complete the last of the AO1 sheet (this will help you with the AO1 and structure of both your essays and problem questions as it all organised like!)
  20. 20. Starter (for this bit!):Can you remember a lot?! Match the case… the image (facts)… the ratio and the area of law! If you have finished, look at the essay plan and start completing the areas and the relevant cases, using the information on the cards.
  21. 21. Intoxication and Criminal Liability 2009 Specific Intent Crimes? Mistake? Involuntary? Burden of proof? Majewski?
  22. 22. Problems and evaluation... A. and this C. and in 1995 argued makes "operated fairly, on intoxication the whole, and much more without difficulty." effective for these crimes. B. seems to ignore the fault element of D getting into the state to start with. D. specific intent crimes is unclear, especially now, F. and the jury thanks to R v Heard. could consider in the alternative. It E. Thus, they are able not to would carry a escape liability for their maximum of 1 actions. year in the first instance, up to G. is that it completely 3 years for ignores the rule on the further coincidence of AR and MR. offences. and is arbitary and unfair H. as alcohol clearly affects Ds ability to make accurate judgements. However, it is in line with the general rules on mistake. I. and really is a risk of doing something stupid rather than the established test
  23. 23. What about the rest of the world?
  24. 24. Finally: What’s wrong with each of the following statements?1. Intoxication is a general defence to any offence in theory.2. Crimes are divided into basic and specific offences, and it depends on the words of the Act, as to which it is.3. Kingston was found not guilty, because his drink was spiked.4. If the drink is stronger than D thinks, then he has a defence if he subsequently couldn’t form the MR for the offence.5. Whilst taking the intoxicant is enough for the mens rea for a basic intent offence, if the intoxicant has a different effect, D may not be liable.
  25. 25. Homework Complete a plan for the essay detailed below. You will be writing this up in timed conditions, and should make sure that your plan addresses both AO1 and AO2 “Discuss the view that the defence of intoxication strikes a fair balance between legal principle and public policy.”