2. Intoxication: 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....
3. 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.
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 crime Was he successful in his appeal? What do you think the courts took into account in making their decision? R v Heard 2007 s.3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 A person (A) commits an offence if – He intentionally touches another person (B) The touching is sexual B does not consent to the touching, and A does not reasonably believe that B consents Is 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 1985 Blakely & Sutton v DPP 1991 How 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
9. Basic Intent Offences Recap... 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 Fotheringham but R v Richardson & Irwin Different effect? Strength of drink? R v Allen R v Hardie
12. Starter:Can you match the cases to their crime and their area? Case? Offence? Specific Basic R v Fotheringham manslaughter R v Lipman murder rape DPP v Majewski ABH AG for NI v Gallagher Sexual assault R v Heard
13. Involuntary Intoxication What 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 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 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 Mistake This is where as a result of D’s intoxication, he made a mistake as to a key fact Which 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 Courts R v O’Grady R v Hutton Jaggard v Dickinson
18. Wordsearch! Student Task There are a number of key cases in here (13)... And a hidden message. Can you find them and decipher the message? The Message... __ __ __ /__ __ __ __ __ __/ __ __ __ __ / __ __ / __ __ __ / __ __ __ __ __ / __ __ / __ __ __/ __ __ __ __ / __ __ __ !
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 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
![General Defences: Intoxication Miss M. Hart G153 [2010]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/intoxication-110116122528-phpapp02/85/Intoxication-1-320.jpg)
