• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How effective was the defence of intoxication?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How effective was the defence of intoxication? Intoxication is the excessive drinking and various forms of drug taking which can be voluntary or involuntary. Intoxication can be a defence depending on whether or not D has the required mens rea. If in an intoxicated state without the required mens rea D may not be guilty. This depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence charged was one of specific or basic intent. The absence of mens rea is required otherwise intoxication cannot be a defence as shown in Kingston (1994) 'a drugged intent is still intent'. Even if D lacks the mens rea D can still be found liable which is an exception to the rule that both mens rea and actus reus are required. Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence. If D is so intoxicated he cannot form the mens rea, he may be able to put forward the defence, but normally he will not avoid liability completely, if it is possible to convict him a lesser basic intent offence. If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence he is not guilty. ...read more.

Middle

Therefore Heard provides an alternative definition of 'specific' intent; where the prosecution must prove some 'purpose' on the part of D, which 'goes beyond the actus reus'. In Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) D had a grudge against his wife and decided to kill, he prepared himself by buying a knife and bottle of whisky to give himself Dutch Courage. His conviction for murder was restored by the House of Lords and affirmed that the defence was not available in a crime of basic intent and that even in a crime of specific intent it had to be shown that the degree of drunkenness was such that D 'rendered so stupid by drink that he does not know what he is doing'. D's intoxication will be considered involuntary if drugs taken under medical prescription, calming/soporific drugs, drink or drugs taken by D without his knowledge and taken under duress. If intoxication is involuntary then the defence will be available to basic and specific intent crimes as long as D lacks the mens rea. If the intoxication negatives mens rea, he is entitled to an acquittal; otherwise he remains liable, even though he would not have acted as he did had he remained sober. ...read more.

Conclusion

This was followed by Fatheringham (1998) D claimed he was very drunk and has mistakenly raped a 14 year old babysitter believing that it was his wife. Court of Appeal held that mistake caused by self-induced intoxication cannot be a defence and neither a defence to crimes of basic intent. If the mistake is the amount of force needed in self-defence, D will not have a defence of basic and specific intent crimes. This was stated in O'Grady (1987) which D claimed V hitting him and so hit V with a glass ashtray and woke the next morning to find V dead. D was convicted of manslaughter, a basic intent offence which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. This was later confirmed in Hatton (2005) D believed that V hit him with a 5 foot long stick and he had defended the attack. When D awoke he found V dead from injuries caused by a sledgehammer. D was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal held that the decision in O'Grady was not limited to basic intent crimes and applied to specific intent crimes. A drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence was not a defence. By refusing to allow a drunken mistake as to the amount of force required, the law is trying to balance the need to be just to the defendant with the protection of victims. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

Summary:
This piece explains the defences of voluntary and involuntary intoxication and uses cases in support. However it never addresses the question 'How effective is the defence ...'
Rating: ***

Marked by teacher Nick Price 05/07/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    This is when the defendant is under a duty you care for another or assumes a duty of care, failure to discharge that duty may lead to liability. An example of this is R v Stone & Dobinson Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    the judiciary to make such radical decisions about the extent of the legislation, further illustrating the importance of reform and modernisation of the law on the non-fatal offences. However, the law on "serious" injury may become more precise; neither of the Bills defined the meaning of "serious", and the Home

  1. Human Trafficking In Australia. This essay will be covering different aspect of human ...

    This law is called the "Convention Concerning the Prohibited and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labour (ILO No. 182) (1999)" During the 20th century there were many more laws that were developed in relation to slavery.

  2. Problems with the Law on Theft

    In this case the defendant had gained prior knowledge of an exam paper, however the judged ruled that their could be no appropriation of intellectual property, however the defendant could be charged if he had taken the exam paper in its physical form.

  1. intoxication as a defence

    Involuntary intoxication can arise through a number of situations including; the defendant taking prescription drugs, the defendant suffering an unexpected reaction to soporific drugs, taking alcohol/drugs under duress or being 'spiked' without knowledge.

  2. Discuss whether trial by jury should be retained or abolished.

    similar circumstances everyday and eventually emotions will not affect them, when juries are usually overwhelmed with the emotional attachments to the case and may make their decision based from the circumstances, not the evidence provided.

  1. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    It is not necessary for there to be a developing attack, the defendant can apprehend an attack. In Beckford (1988), a policeman's family was threatened by a local drugs gang. He pummeled the dealer with a chair leg and there was no death.

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    Furthermore, the D may still be liable for injuries suffered to a victim trying to escape unless the victim?s response was daft. In R v Roberts the girl jumping form the car to escape an assault was held as a reasonable response.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work