1. The document discusses the role of intoxication as a defense in criminal cases. Intoxication is not a true defense but is sometimes argued to negate intent. 2. It notes that over 1 million violent crimes in the UK in 2006-2007 involved an intoxicated defendant or victim. The cost of alcohol-related crime is estimated at £7.3 billion. 3. The document examines cases related to whether intoxication can negate intent for specific intent crimes versus basic intent crimes. It also considers involuntary intoxication and intoxicated mistakes in judgments of fact.

1. General Defences:IntoxicationMiss M. HartG153 [2010]

2. Intoxication: The basicsAn 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....

3. 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.

4. Specific or basic intent?

5. So, how do we tell the difference?Now read the case. Following precedent should he have been able to rely on self-induced intoxication. Why/ why not. What are the facts of the case?According to the judges was it a specific or a basic intent crimeWas he successful in his appeal?What do you think the courts took into account in making their decision?R v Heard 2007s.3 Sexual Offences Act 2003A person (A) commits an offence if –He intentionally touches another person (B)The touching is sexualB does not consent to the touching, andA does not reasonably believe that B consentsIs this a basic intent or specific intent crime?What role should D’s intoxication play?

6. Strict LiabilityCan you even argue Intoxication?s.5 Road Traffic Act 1985Blakely & Sutton v DPP 1991How far may this case illustrate that public policy is more important than individual injustice?

7. Specific Intent“If D was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required, he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved.”DPP v Beard 1920“a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent”Sheehan and Moore 1975

8. ... ButDutch Courage?AG for NI v Gallagher 1963

9. Basic Intent OffencesRecap...Key Case:Test for recklessness: Why is intoxication not a defence to these crimes?

10. DPP v Majewski“illogical though the present law may be, it represents a compromise between the imposition of liability upon inebriates in complete 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. Some other considerations...R v FotheringhambutR v Richardson & IrwinDifferent effect?Strength of drink?R v AllenR v Hardie

12. Starter:Can you match the cases to their crime and their area?Case?Offence?SpecificBasicR v FotheringhammanslaughterR v LipmanmurderrapeDPP v MajewskiABHAG for NI v GallagherSexual assaultR v Heard

13. Involuntary IntoxicationWhat does this cover? 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?

14. R v Kingston 19941. 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 upholding of the conviction.4. Who has the burden of proof?5. What is meant by a ‘spurious’ defence?6. Was the decision of CA upheld?

15. Intoxicated MistakeThis is where as a result of D’s intoxication, he made a mistake as to a key factWhich other case, which we have looked at, come under this “intoxicated mistake” area?

16. 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?

17. 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 it is honestly held.”Force: The approach of the CourtsR v O’GradyR v HuttonJaggard v Dickinson

18. Wordsearch! Student TaskThere are a number of key cases in here (13)... And a hidden message. Can you find them and decipher the message?The Message...__ __ __ /__ __ __ __ __ __/ __ __ __ __ / __ __ / __ __ __ / __ __ __ __ __ / __ __ / __ __ __/ __ __ __ __ / __ __ __ !

19. IntroductionThe law so far...Different strength

20. Problems and evaluation...A. and this makes intoxication much more effective for these crimes. C.and in 1995 argued "operated fairly, on the whole, and without difficulty."B. seems to ignore the 'fault' element of D getting into the state to start with.D. specific intent crimes is unclear, especially now, thanks to R v Heard. F. and the jury could consider in the alternative. It would carry a maximum of 1 year in the first instance, up to 3 years for further offences. E. Thus, they are able not to escape liability for their actions. G. is that it completely ignores the rule on the coincidence of AR and MR. and is arbitary and unfairH. 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

21. What about the rest of the world?

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

23. Can you remember a lot?!Match the start (which you have) to the end below!