Voluntary intoxication is available only to specific intent crimes if the defendant is incapable of forming the necessary mens rea. ‘Dutch courage’, the act of deliberately intoxicating yourself in order to commit a crime is not a defence to any crime, even to crimes that can only be committed with a specific intention. A case example of this is Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) here, the defendant drank a bottle of whisky in order to give himself ‘Dutch courage’, he then proceeded to kill his wife with a knife. The House of Lords upheld his conviction for murder as he had formed the mens rea before intoxicating himself.
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. If the defendant is involuntary intoxicated, as long as they did not form the necessary mens rea, a defence will be available for both specific and basic intent crimes. However, if the defendant was still able to form mens rea despite being intoxicated against their own will, a defence will not be available. In the case of Kingston (1995) the defendant, a known paedophile, was blackmailed by a former business associate who invited him to his flat. On arrival, his drink was spiked and was then taken to a room where a 15 year old boy was asleep where he was told to abuse him, the defendant then proceeded to abuse the boy whilst the associate documented the event through recordings and photographs. The defendant was convicted of indecent assault after admitting he had intended to assault the boy. Even though he was intoxicated without his consent and knowledge, he was still guilty as he had formed the necessary mens rea.
If a defendant becomes intoxicated through prescription medicine, a defence of intoxication can be used. However, if the defendant was aware that the medicine would cause them to act aggressively, unpredictably or uncontrollably then they can be considered reckless and therefore guilty. In the case of Bailey (1983) the defendant was found guilty of grievous bodily harm. The decision of not eating after taking insulin was considered reckless which established the mens rea necessary for the offence. The same idea of recklessness is used in situations involving drugs that have a sedative or soporific effect. If the decision of taking the drug in the first place is considered reckless, then intoxication cannot be used as a defence.
To conclude, intoxication can be effective as a defence but there are several issues. A main one being that it is difficult to know which offences the courts will class as specific intent and basic intent crimes. This is due to the general rule (that crimes of specific intent can use the defence of intoxication whilst basic intent crimes cannot) is not consistently applied. Some solutions to this problem include abandoning the distinction altogether, leaving it to the jury so each case is individual and suggesting that all defendants should not be held criminally liable as they were unable to form the mens rea in the first place. Another issue is inconsistency in its effect. Some specific intent crimes do not have a corresponding basic intent crime therefore intoxication would operate as a complete defence, but for the specific intent crimes that do have a corresponding basic intent crime, the defendant would be convicted. To improve the effectiveness of the defence of intoxication several reforms are suggested. The first is to ensure that all specific intent crimes have a corresponding basic intent crime which would help to promote consistency. Another suggestion is to replace the current law with a new offence of ‘dangerous intoxication’. Juries could then find the defendant guilty of dangerous intoxication rather instead of being guilty for the offence committed. The final suggestion is to introduce intoxication as a complete defence as the defendants are incapable of forming necessary mens rea, thus resulting into acquittals.
