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

Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Intoxication - The Legal Viewpoint. Intoxication by drink or by drugs - the criminal law makes no distinction - is no defence in itself, but has frequently to be considered either as leading to a lack of mens rea or as the cause of a mistake that may offer a defence. The law is unsympathetic towards those who injure others or their property while under the influence of drink or drugs taken voluntarily, and rightly so considering the very large number of crimes that are alcohol- or drug-related. A number of studies have shown that between half and two-thirds of the perpetrators of homicide, assault and rape had been drinking (and that a large proportion of these were seriously intoxicated) at or just before the time of the offence. Alcohol is associated with up to 70 per cent of homicides and serious assaults, and with 50 per cent of fights or assaults in the home. Specific intent Where an offence is one of specific intent, and D did not have that intent (whether because of intoxication or for any other reason), he is entitled to be acquitted. ...read more.

Middle

Offences of basic intent include manslaughter, rape, malicious wounding and assault. R v Lipman [1969] 3 All ER 410, CA D and his girlfriend V each took a quantity of LSD (a hallucinatory drug). During his "trip", D imagined he was being attacked by snakes at the centre of the earth and had to defend himself; in doing so, he actually killed V by cramming eight inches of sheet down her throat. He was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter. Upholding the conviction, the Court of Appeal said that since no specific intent is required for manslaughter, self-induced intoxication (whether by drink or drugs) affords no defence. DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142, HL D took a mixture of drugs and alcohol and subsequently assaulted the landlord in a pub brawl. His conviction was upheld: D's intoxication was the result of his own voluntary reckless act, said the House of Lords, and the trial judge had rightly directed the jury that they were to ignore it in considering whether he had formed the necessary mens rea in a crime of basic intent. Lord Elwyn-Jones LC said that if a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off ...read more.

Conclusion

His defence was automatism caused by hypoglycaemia, brought on by failing to take sufficient food after taking his prescribed insulin. The trial judge directed the jury that self-induced automatism could not be a defence, and the jury convicted on both counts. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction on the facts of the case, but said Lawton LJ's dictum was perhaps too broad. If a defendant does appreciate the risks associated with a failure to take food after insulin, the jury may decide that his disregard of such a risk is reckless, but it depends on the circumstances. R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698, CA D was charged with buggery and indecent assault (these being crimes of basic intent), but claimed he was so drunk he had not known what he was doing. He had drunk a certain amount of wine without realising how strong it was, and his intoxication should therefore be regarded as involuntary. Upholding his conviction, the Court of Appeal said that where a defendant knows he is taking alcohol, the drinking does not become involuntary just because he does not know its exact nature or strength. A drugged intent, even if the intoxication is involuntary, is still an intent. ...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 Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

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 Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Also in the case of Wattleworth v Goodward Racing there was discussion as to whether a governing body could be held liable for negligent Medical and safety advice. It was held that it was not. This is discussed in the E-commerce Law reports in a Journal Called Wattleworth v GRRC, MSA and FIA.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    and Sec 1, 8, 9 of The Theft Act 1968 are offences which require the mens rea of intention, these offences are known as specific intent crimes as the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus. If the defendant does not have the mens rea of the offence he has

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    Nonetheless, guidelines are required for difficult cases, and two separate legal definitions have arisen. D 'intended' the actus reus if Weber oppressed ace_16k's structuralism hypothesis. (I) D intended the actus reus in the ordinary, paradigm sense of 'intention'; he seeks to bring about the relevant outcome and acts in pursuance

  2. Involuntary Manslaughter

    MR * D must have foreseen a risk of serious injury or death occurring. This is subjective recklessness. * D must have assessed that risk as at least highly probable to occur. Before the case of Adomako, it was held that manslaughter could be committed by recklessness on an objective test.

  1. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to ...

    must be proven: * The employer must provide a safe system of work * The plaintiff has suffered damage in consequences * The defendant (Bill Speed) owing Bob a legal duty of care * The defendant (Bill Speed) was in breach of duty * The employer must provide and force

  2. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    The case of R v WHITE (1910) 2 KB 124 - CA, where the 'but-for' cause was the heart attack not the poison, illustrates this point. Here, the defendant son put potassium cyanide in a drink intending it to kill his mother, who was found shortly afterwards with the drink three parts full.

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    But if I refuse to dig your garden, I can only be in breach of a legal duty if I had already agreed to do so by means of a contract. In contract, duties are usually only owed to the other contracting party, whereas in tort, they are usually owed to people in general.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Sam has duty of ensuring the crowd as well as Hugh are at the safe place but he has breach his duty as not paying attention to Hugh and letting him injured. Furthermore, Sam was doing his job under the course of employment; therefore his employer is vicariously liable for his negligence.

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