Intoxication (OCR A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Intoxication
What is intoxication?
Intoxication refers to the effects of alcohol, drugs, and other substances such as solvents on a person's mental state and behaviour. It is crucial to understand that intoxication is not a defence in itself. The legal significance of intoxication arises when a defendant is so intoxicated that they cannot form the required mens rea (guilty mind) for an offence.
The law on intoxication reflects a careful balance between two competing principles:
- We cannot usually punish someone who lacks the necessary mens rea for a crime
- Public policy requires that people who commit crimes while intoxicated should face consequences for their actions
The law distinguishes between two main categories of intoxication:
- Voluntary intoxication - where the defendant chooses to consume intoxicating substances
- Involuntary intoxication - where the defendant unknowingly consumes intoxicating substances
Voluntary intoxication
Voluntary intoxication occurs when the defendant knowingly and willingly takes a substance that they are aware can cause intoxication. This typically includes alcohol and drugs.
Dangerous and non-dangerous drugs
The courts have drawn an important distinction between different types of drugs. This distinction was established in Bailey (1983) and Hardie (1985), where the Court of Appeal differentiated between:
Dangerous drugs: Substances that are widely known to cause unpredictability or aggressive behaviour. Knowingly taking dangerous drugs amounts to voluntary intoxication.
Non-dangerous drugs: Substances not typically associated with unpredictable or aggressive effects. Whether taking these drugs counts as voluntary intoxication depends on the defendant's knowledge and understanding of how the drug might affect them.
Voluntary intoxication as a defence
Voluntary intoxication can operate as a complete defence to crimes of specific intent, but it will not generally provide a defence to crimes of basic intent. This crucial distinction is explored further below.
The Court of Appeal in R v Harris (2013) made an unusual obiter comment suggesting that the law in this area may require reconsideration, particularly regarding voluntary intoxication and subjective recklessness.
Involuntary intoxication
Involuntary intoxication occurs when the defendant was unaware that they were consuming an intoxicating substance. Common examples include:
- Having one's drink "spiked" with alcohol or drugs
- Prescription medications having unexpected or unforeseen effects
- Being unknowingly given a stronger substance than expected
The legal effect of involuntary intoxication depends on whether the defendant formed the mens rea:
If the defendant did not form the mens rea while involuntarily intoxicated: They are not guilty of the crime, as they lack the required mental element.
If the defendant did form the mens rea while involuntarily intoxicated: They can still be guilty of the crime, despite the involuntary intoxication.
Case Example: R v Kingston (1994)
The defendant, a known paedophile, drank drugged coffee and subsequently abused a young boy as part of a blackmail attempt by others.
The court's decision: Despite being involuntarily intoxicated, Kingston was still convicted because he knew what he was doing even though he could not control his actions. This established that involuntary intoxication is not a defence if the defendant still formed the required mens rea.
Intoxication and specific vs basic intent crimes
The distinction between specific intent and basic intent crimes is fundamental to understanding how intoxication operates in criminal law.
Voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes
Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to crimes of basic intent.
The rationale for this rule is based on the principle that:
- Becoming voluntarily intoxicated is itself a reckless course of action
- This recklessness provides sufficient evidence of the mens rea required for basic intent crimes (which can be committed recklessly)
Examples of basic intent crimes include assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and common assault.
This principle was firmly established in DPP v Majewski (1977), where the defendant's conviction for ABH was upheld because his recklessness in becoming intoxicated satisfied the mens rea requirement for the basic intent offence.
Voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes
For crimes of specific intent, the position is different:
If the defendant is so intoxicated that they are incapable of forming the mens rea: They have a complete defence to specific intent crimes because they cannot form the required mental element.
If the defendant is intoxicated but still forms the intent: They can be guilty of the offence. As established in Sheehan and Moore (1975), a drunken intent is still an intent.
The principle in DPP v Beard (1920) established that for voluntary intoxication to provide a defence, the defendant must be completely incapable of forming the mens rea for the offence.
The "Dutch courage" doctrine
It is important to note that intoxication cannot be used as a defence where the defendant deliberately drinks or takes drugs to give themselves courage to commit an offence.
The "Dutch Courage" Rule
This principle was established in A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963), where the defendant decided to kill his wife and consumed whisky before carrying out the killing.
The court held that the mens rea was formed before the intoxication occurred, and therefore the "Dutch courage" intoxication was irrelevant. As the court stated, a drunken intent is still an intent.
Recent developments: R v Harris (2013)
The Court of Appeal in R v Harris (2013) made a significant obiter comment that may affect future development of the law on voluntary intoxication and subjective recklessness:
We see some force in the argument that voluntary intoxication ought not to be a defence to an offence involving recklessness, even subjective recklessness; it may fall for decision in a later case whether Lord Lane's view in Stephenson (1979) correctly represents the law now that Caldwell recklessness has passed away.
This suggests that the current rules allowing voluntary intoxication as a defence to crimes requiring subjective recklessness may be reconsidered in future cases, potentially expanding the range of offences for which voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence.
Key cases on intoxication
| Case | Facts | Element of intoxication | Legal principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPP v Beard (1920) | Defendant argued intoxication as a defence to murder | Definition of the defence | The defendant must be completely incapable of forming the mens rea for the defence to apply |
| A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) | Defendant decided to kill his wife, bought whisky and a knife, drank the whisky before killing her | "Dutch courage" principle | Mens rea was formed before the intoxication occurred. Dutch courage is no defence - a drunken intent is still an intent |
| DPP v Majewski (1977) | Defendant consumed excessive alcohol and drugs, then got into a fight | Voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes | Conviction for ABH upheld due to his recklessness in becoming intoxicated. Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent crimes |
| R v Kingston (1994) | Defendant, a known paedophile, drank drugged coffee and subsequently abused a young boy as part of a blackmail attempt by others | Involuntary intoxication | Despite the involuntary intoxication, the defendant still knew what he was doing; he simply could not stop himself. Therefore, he was guilty |
| Bailey (1983) and Hardie (1985) | Various facts involving drug consumption | Dangerous vs non-dangerous drugs | Court of Appeal distinguished between dangerous drugs (which equate to voluntary intoxication) and non-dangerous drugs (which may or may not, depending on the defendant's understanding) |
| Sheehan and Moore (1975) | Defendants committed offences while intoxicated | Intent while intoxicated | A drunken intent is still an intent - if the defendant forms the mens rea while intoxicated, they can be convicted |
Exam technique
When answering questions on intoxication, ensure you understand and can apply the key distinctions clearly:
For scenario/problem questions:
- Identify whether the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary
- Determine whether the offence charged is one of specific intent or basic intent
- Apply the relevant legal principles:
- For voluntary intoxication: Can only be a defence to specific intent crimes if the defendant was incapable of forming mens rea
- For involuntary intoxication: Defence available if mens rea was not formed
- Use relevant case law to support your application
- Reach a clear conclusion on whether the defence would be available
For essay questions:
- Explain the definitions and distinctions clearly (voluntary/involuntary, specific/basic intent)
- Use the most relevant and authoritative cases to illustrate each principle (do not simply list cases)
- Address the policy considerations underlying the law - the balance between mens rea requirements and public protection
- Include evaluation of criticisms and potential reforms
- Consider recent developments such as R v Harris (2013) and its implications
- Present your own reasoned views on the strengths and weaknesses of the current law - legitimate personal criticisms are valued by examiners
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Intoxication is not a defence in itself - it only becomes relevant when it prevents formation of mens rea
- Voluntary intoxication = knowingly taking intoxicating substances; can be a complete defence to specific intent crimes only if the defendant was incapable of forming mens rea
- Involuntary intoxication = unknowingly taking intoxicating substances; provides a defence if mens rea was not formed, but not if the defendant still formed the required intent
- A drunken intent is still an intent - if the defendant forms mens rea while intoxicated, they can be convicted (Sheehan and Moore)
- Dutch courage is no defence - forming intent before getting intoxicated means intoxication is irrelevant (Gallagher)
- The distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous drugs affects whether intoxication is classified as voluntary (Bailey and Hardie)
- The rationale for denying the defence to basic intent crimes is that becoming intoxicated is itself a reckless act, providing the mens rea for basic intent offences
- R v Harris (2013) suggests the law may develop to restrict voluntary intoxication as a defence even further in relation to subjective recklessness