Here are the key points about R v Kingston: 1. Kingston broke into a house and sexually assaulted two young girls while heavily intoxicated on alcohol. 2. Kingston claimed that due to his intoxicated state, his inhibitions were lowered and he gave in to impulses that he would normally have resisted when sober. Specifically, the judge said his intoxication lowered his resistance to "sexual impulses towards young girls". So in summary, Kingston argued that while the intoxication did not remove his mental capacity entirely, it lowered his ability to resist impulses/urges that he could normally control when sober. The court accepted this could provide a defence to the specific intent crimes in his case

1. Quick Recap:
Can you sort the mental condition defences out?
You have the mixed up sections
for the three mental condition
defences (automatism, insanity
and diminished responsibility).
All you need to do is sort them
out into the correct defence.
For each you need:
 Cause
 Example of what might be
included
 Outcome
 Label
 Scenario
 Two case examples

2. So what can you tell me about mental condition defences?
Complete the brainstorm below to show your understanding of the AO1 for this
topic
Means? Means?
Result?
Result?
Mental
automatism Insanity
condition
defences

3. Any areas you have put nothing for... Plenary
Were you missing? How confident are you?
Did you ask?
Have you researched?
I know what I can I can evaluate
this is. describe this or discuss this
The implications of pleading insanity
The definition of insanity from
M’Naughten
The interpretation of defect of reason
The interpretation of disease of the
mind
What is meant by nature and quality
and wrong
The definition of non-insane
automatism
The approach of the court to self
induced automatism
The problems with the current law on
insanity and automatism.

4. General Defences:
Intoxication
Miss M. Hart
G153 [2012]

5. 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 . The
general rule for a basic intent crime, such as , is that by taking the intoxicant, D is and
so has the mens rea. This is illustrated by the case of , where even though he had no idea what he was
actually doing, the taking of the LSD would be enough. However, there is a clear exception where the substance has
a 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 these
crimes, D may have a defence if he was so intoxicated that he could not at
all. The courts have said that even if it was self-induced, D may have a defence as in the case of where
he 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. The
courts have made this clear in , where the Private detective drugged D and helped him to abuse
a young boy.
Kingston manslaughter Bailey specific
Lipman
basic reckless
murder Hardie
form a mens rea specific

6. 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....

7. Intoxication:
Why such an issue?
2006/7 1,087,000 violent incidents took place where V believed D to be under the
influence
Cost of alcohol related crime is put at
£7.3 bn.

8. Strict Liability
Can 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?

9. Specific or basic intent?
Highlight the offences:
Colour One: The basic intent offences
Colour Two: The specific intent offences

10. 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?

11. Voluntary Intoxication
Specific Intent
DPP 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 is
Sheehan and nevertheless an
Moore 1975 intent”

12. 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.

13. 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. Explain why intoxication cannot be a defence to a
strict liability offence…
E. In deciding whether D can rely on a defence of
intoxication, the courts are most worried about...

14. Starter:
Can you complete the
challenge?
All of you need to be able to
identify what the images represent.
Most of you will be able to
explain the legal link between the
four images.
Some of you will be able to spot
the odd one out... And explain why!

15. Re-sitting and want some help?
G151 English Legal
System
Wednesdays p.6
G152 Sources of Law
Thursdays p.6 Week B
Fridays p.6 Week A

16. Voluntary Intoxication
Basic 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 complete
recklessness: 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.”

17. More (Basic) Rules
R v Fotheringham R v Richardson & Irwin
but
Other issues
R v Hardie R v Allen
Different effect? Strength of drink?

18. Involuntary Intoxication
General Rules:
If the drink is spiked...
But: What if it has a very
different effect?
But: What if it merely removes
boundaries in your behaviour?

19. 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. What is meant by a ‘spurious’ defence?
5. Do you agree with the decision of the
Court of Appeal or the House of
Lords? Why?

20. 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?

21. 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?

22. The approach of the Courts
R 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 if
R v O’Connor it is honestly held.”

23. Got it?
Can you match the cases to their crime and
their area?
Case? Offence?
Specific
Basic
R v Fotheringham manslaughter
murder
R v Lipman R v Heard rape
DPP v Majewski Sexual assault
ABH
AG for NI v Gallagher

24. The whole topic...
Hidden in here are 24 cases covering general defences. Can
you find them and allocate it to one of the areas.
Duress & Necessity Intoxication
Insanity Automatism

25. Homework
You will be a given a short pack which
includes articles on reform and evaluation
of the law on insanity and automatism.
You need to read the articles and consider
their arguments.
Using your own words, produce at least
two sides evaluating the current law, and
the proposals for change.
Are you aiming for the top?
You are strongly advised to read chapter two on
insanity from the Law Commission’s recent scoping
paper.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/insanity_
scoping.pdf

26. Intoxication and Criminal Liability 2009
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/intoxication.htm
Specific Intent
Crimes?
Mistake?
Involuntary?
Burden of proof?
Majewski?

27. 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 D's 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

28. What about the rest of the world?

29. 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.

30. 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!)

31. 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.

32. 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.”