Summary
Summary Criminal Law - Denial of Offences
- Course
- Institution
Intoxication, sane automatism & insanity.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
fgms
Reviews received
Content preview
DENIALS OF AN OFFENCEDifferentiation of denials of an offence and defences:
Denial of an offence: Denial of the AR or MR (or both)
- EG: “I was drunk and therefore not able to form the MR” Or “I was beset by a swarm of bees and
therefore could not control my movement (AR)”
- D has to bring some evidence to support this - because of the general assumption that we are
sober, etc.
- such evidence can in some cases be used against D! (‘prior fault’)
Defence: AR and MR present but there is an excuse
- Specific – available only on some offences (EG: diminished responsibility – last term)
- General – available on all offences (next lecture)
Intoxication:
Intoxication only applies where, as a result of D’s intoxication, D lacks MR for the crime.
General Rule: drunken intent is still intent - Kingston 1994: P was hired to take photos of D for
blackmail. P invited V (15-year-old boy) to his flat, gave him alcohol and drugs and let him fall asleep. Then he
drugged D’s coffee and encouraged him to assault V as he slept. Convicted of indecent assault – MR was proved
irrespective of intoxication.
Principle of ‘prior fault’: applies when D is claiming that she didn’t have MR for the offence charged
because she was intoxicated by drink or drugs at the time of the offence.
- Majewski 1976: “If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off the
restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any
injury he may do while in that condition.”
- Simester 2009: ‘Intoxication is never a defence’
- Even if you were so drunk that you didn’t know what you were doing, the fact that you got
drunk in the first place is your ‘prior fault’
‘PRIOR FAULT’ INTOXICATION RULES: Intoxication with no MR
1. D’s intoxication must be voluntary.
2. It was a basic intent offence, not specific intent.
3. The intoxicating substance was ‘dangerous’
4. D lacked MR because of the intoxication
5. Then, D is liable
Where D says they were so drunk or high on drugs that they didn’t know what they were doing –
they are arguing that there is no MR
Legislature doesn’t think this is fair for someone to get away with this, Voluntarily getting that
drunk and high – it accounts for the missing MR.
1. Voluntary or Involuntary Intoxication:
Involuntary? - Where D is involuntarily intoxicated which causes D to lack MR at the
time of the offence = no liability because there’s no ‘prior fault’ in her
becoming intoxicated which can provide the culpability for conduct.
- Ross v HM Advocate 1991: D’s drink was involuntarily laced with various
drugs including LSD, under the influence of which D injured several people. His
conviction quashed on appeal - no intent and involuntary intoxication
- The ‘prior fault’ intoxication rules don’t apply unless offence elements are
missing - Kingston 1994
- Involuntariness has been narrowly defined - Allen 1988: D sexually assault
V. He argued that he lacked MR because he didn’t realise the strength of the wine.
– where D knows that she is consuming a dangerous intoxication, EG:
alcohol, this doesn’t qualify as involuntary because she is unaware of its
quantity or possible effects.
Where D voluntarily consumes an intoxicant, but a further intoxicant is added
without her knowledge - EG: X gives D a double shot of alcohol rather than the
single requested, or X laces D’s alcoholic drink with a drug.
- The question is for the court: whether the involuntary proportion of D’s
intoxication overrides the voluntary
Intoxication rules will NOT be used to replace the lack of MR = no liability
If voluntary, then you have to ask whether it is a specific or basic intent
, offence?
2. Specific or Specific intent offences: Intoxication will NOT be used to replace a lack of
Basic intent MR = no liability.
offence? Basic intent offences: Intoxication can replace a lack of MR
Distinguishing between Specific and Basic:
- Majewski 1977: D was intoxicated by a range of drugs, including alcohol, D
was involved in a bar brawl and injured several people and assaulted police
officers while getting arrested. – where basic intent offences, D’s voluntary
intoxication can be used to replace MR he lacked.
o Lord Simon set out test: ‘where D must intend the consequence element of
the offence, it is a specific intent offence’
- Heard 2007: whilst drunk, D exposed his penis and rubbed it on a police
officer’s leg. D claimed he lacked MR due to intoxication. Convicted of
sexual assault.
o Provided an alternative test: ‘crimes of specific intent are those where the
offence requires proof of purpose or consequence, which are not confined to,
but amongst which are included, those where the purpose goes beyond the
actus reus’ (sometimes referred to as cases of ‘ulterior intent’)
SPECIFI Murder - Beard 1920
C Wounding or causing GBH with intent (s18) - Davies 1991
BASIC Manslaughter – Beard 1920
Malicious wounding or causing GBH (s20) - Aitken 1992
Assault occasioning in ABH (s47) – Majewski 1977
Assault - Majewski 1977
Battery - Majewski 1977
Rape - Woods 1980
Sexual assault - Heard 2007
***‘Dutch courage’: where D becomes intoxicated in order to commit an offence:
Gallagher 1963
3. Was the If yes, can replace lack of MR with intoxication
intoxicant If no = no liability
dangerous? A drug is ‘dangerous’ where it is commonly known in society, or personally
known to D, to cause unpredictability and/or aggression.
- Lipman 1970: D took some LSD. He was hallucinating and whilst in this state
he killed a girl by cramming bed sheets into her mouth. – LSD is a dangerous
drug
- Bailey 1983: D, a diabetic, failed to eat after insulin and attacked people whilst
in the intoxicated state – not a dangerous drug so he was able to use
intoxication as a denial of offence
- Hardie 1984: D took Valium (commonly understood to calm rather than enrage)
to calm himself after being told by partner to leave the house. D returned after
taking tablets and set fire to a wardrobe. – not a dangerous drug so he was able
to deny offence because of intoxication
4. Did D lack To replace lack of MR with intoxication, D must lack MR because of
MR because of intoxication
intoxication? - Would D have had the MR if sober?
Yes = can replace lack of MR with intoxication
No = no liability
Richardson & Irwin 1999: drunk Ds threw V off a balcony, claimed not to have
foreseen injury. The question arose from this case: What would Ds have
foreseen if sober?
Intoxication and the defences:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller fgms. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.05. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now