Intoxication:Intoxication impairs a persons judgement so he may fail to be aware of facts, or to foresee results of his conduct, of which he would certainly

have been aware, or have foreseen, if he had been sober. It must be made clear that intoxication is not a true excuse against criminal liability. And is under the watchful eyes of public policy. Intoxication only serves to negate the element of mens rea in the definition of a crime. However, if the definition of the offence does not require proof that the accused intended or foresaw a particular result, this defence is useless.

The basic Rules of Intoxication 1) Generally Voluntary intoxication is not a defence even if it prevents the accused from having the mens rea normally required for the crime charge. 2) However exceptionally it would be a defence if; a. It brings on a distinct disease of the mind such as delirium tremens so that D is insane within the MNaghten rules. (attorney general for northern Ireland v Gallagher[1963]) or b. He crime as charged is a crime of specific intent and the intoxication prevents D from having the necessary specific intent. (DPP v Majewski[1976]). 3) It is never defence to crimes of basic intent, or where a charge can be satisfied by proof of recklessness whether subjective or objective. (Caldwell) 4) Involuntary intoxication will be a defence to any crime specific or basic, but only if it prevents D from having the mens rea for the crime charged.(Kingston[1994]).

MNaghten Rules If the drink or drugs trigger a distinct disease of the mind e.g. permanent damage to the brain cells, and as a result D does not know either the nature and quality of his act or that it is wrong, he will be insane within those rules.

Voluntary Intoxication Intoxication would be deemed voluntary where D is addicted and unable to resist the temptation of drink or drug, or if he misjudged the amount of alcohol he was taking or its intoxicating effect. Similarly if he knowingly overdosed on a prescribed drug or neglected medical advice on said prescription, he would be deemed as voluntarily consuming the drug.

Voluntary intoxication can be used to support a denial of mens rea only for a limited category of crimes of specific intent. The modern law of intoxication is found in the case of Majewski (supra) which is built up on the authority of DPP v Beard. Evidence of self induced intoxication negativing mens rea is a defence to the charge of a crime requiring a specific intent but not to a charge of any other crime. In Majewski the defendant attacked a police officer in a pub while under the influence of drink and drug and sort to deny mens rea based on his self induced intoxication. It is in this case that the House of Lords drew a common law distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent. (i) A crime of specific intent is one which the mens rea element is intention and nothing less. (ii) A crime of basic intent is one which can be committed recklessly. Lord Salmon said A man who voluntarily taking drink or drugs gets himself into an aggressive state... can hardly say with any plausibility that what he did was a pure accident which should render him immune from any criminal liability... The general principle coming out of Majewski (supra) was that self induced intoxication is no defence to a crime in which recklessness is enough to constitute the mens rea. Crimes which can be committed recklessly include those forms where foresight or awareness must be proved, such as assault, malicious wounding, sexual assault, manslaughter, rape, criminal damage if charged as reckless, taking and driving away a motor vehicle. With these offences the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to D Criticisms of Majewski It deems the defendants negligence or recklessness in becoming voluntarily intoxicated his prior fault to be sufficient mens rea for the crime. This was said to be a breach of the principle of contemporaneity, which is a state of occurring at the same or close to the same time (i) The House of Lords attempted to use the principle of a continuing state of mind as in the case of Fagan [1969]. Despite the fact that the degree of fault in becoming intoxicated bears no correlation to the mens rea that would normally be required. If the continuing state of mind theory is to apply this means that the state of mind would exist in abstract until D engages in a criminal act. Reference can be made on pages 184 in the study guide. Degree of intoxication does not matter in the application of this rule. Majewski does not create a rule of substantive law, but one of evidence. This means that once D has been shown to be voluntarily intoxicated in a basic intent crime the evidence of intoxication is irrelevant to the question whether D held the mens rea, but the prosecution is still obliged to prove that D had the relevant mens rea. (R v Woods[1981]) and Lipman.

Dangerous or Non- Dangerous drugs in basic intent crimes It is important to consider whether the substance ingested is commonly known as dangerous and creating states of unpredictability or aggression. Where it is common knowledge that a drug is liable to cause the taker to become dangerous unpredictable or aggressive, that drug is to be classed with alcohol. Where there is no common knowledge as in the case of a merely soporific or sedative drug applies as in the case of R v Bailey [1983]. If it a non dangerous drug, the rule is that D must acquitted of any basic intent crimes for which, through the intoxication he has no mens rea unless the prosecution can prove that D actually foresaw that he might become aggressive and unpredictable. This rule applies even if the drug is taken in large quantities and/or is not medically prescribed.

Dutch courage If intending to commit a crime D takes drinks or drugs then commits the crime, having at the time of the act induced such a state of drunkardness as to negative a crime of specific intent or induced insanity within the MNaghten rules the defence, will not be available even in relation to crimes of specific intent.

Case facts AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) The Respondent was an aggressive psychopath and prone to violent outbursts. This was particularly so if he had taken alcohol. He was frequently violent towards his wife. He had spent some time in a mental hospital for which he blamed his wife. On his release he went out and brought a bottle of whiskey and a knife. He intended to use the knife to kill his wife and brought the whiskey as he knew that this would make him aggressive to the extent that he would be able to kill. He drank the whiskey and killed his wife with the knife and a hammer. He was convicted of murder and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal N.I on the grounds of a mis-direction. His conviction was quashed. The Attorney General appealed to the House of Lords on the grounds that the defence of insanity was not open to him because before taking the drink, when there was no defect in his reason, he had clearly evinced an intention to kill his wife and any temporary derangement of his reason at the time of the killing was the result of his own voluntary act in taking the drink. Held: Appeal allowed. The conviction restored. Where a person forms the intention to kill and drinks in order to give themselves Dutch courage, they can not then rely on their intoxication to demonstrate they did not have the necessary mens rea. Lord Denning: "My Lords, this case differs from all others in the books in that the accused man, whilst sane and sober, before he took to the drink, had already made up 'his mind to kill his wife. This seems to me to be far worse and far more deserving of condemnationthan the case of a man who. before getting drunk, has no intention to kill, but afterwards in his cups, whilst drunk, kills another by an act which he would not dream of doing when sober. Yet by the law of England in this latter case his drunkenness is no defence even though it has distorted his reason and his will-power. So why should it be a defence in the present case? And is it made any better by saying that the man is a psychopath?"