• 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...


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.


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.


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)

    Whilst the usual rules of criminal law apply, sometimes the results are not always consistent. For example in the case of R v Lincoln (1990) 12 Cr App R 250 a football player punched an opposing member of the team.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    a defence for specific intent, the defence is complete or partial if it can be proven he lacked mens rea through intoxication. R v Lipman (1969) the defendant and a girl had voluntarily consumed a quantity of LSD at the defendant's flat.

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

    Thinking back to Hart's formulation, this is more generous to the defendant, all Hart required was proof that the defendant had the ability to understand the risk. Stephenson (1979) required proof that the defendant actually appreciated the risk.cogg ggr seggggw orgg ggk ingg fogg gg; However, in 1981, this established

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

    And employer's duty also includes protecting employees from harassment, bullying or victimization by other by other employees. Adequate equipment Employers have a duty to take reasonable care to provide their workers with adequate equipment, including protective devices and clothing, and to maintain it all properly.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    The case of R v. Miller5 further widens the rules as it was shown in Miller that recklessness was sufficient mens rea. This confirmation meant that even if d. was not actively thinking or intending to commit the actus reus his omission when under a duty of care or recklessness

  2. In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes - give ...

    While the MR is 'dishonesty with the intention to permanently deprive'. Elizabeth clearly appropriated the can of polish and coffee and 'assumed the rights of owner'5. The leading case in this area is Gomez (92)6 the case mainly centred on where there were no stolen goods but also it was

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    Act 1996. So, let's come to the central element of the actus reus: 'killeth' or causing the death of the victim. Now, because murder is a result crime, it must be proved in each case that the defendant's actions were the cause of the victim's death.

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

    Duty of care The first is the duty of care that must exist in the first instance. A duty of care is the obligation to avoid careless actions that could cause harm to one or more persons. It was established in Donoghue v.

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