Learning Outcomes
This article explores the legal principles surrounding intoxication in criminal law. After studying this material, you should understand how intoxication can affect the formation of mens rea and its relevance as a potential factor in negating criminal liability. You will learn the distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and how each interacts with specific intent and basic intent offences. This knowledge will enable you to analyse scenarios involving intoxication and apply the relevant legal rules to determine potential criminal culpability, specifically for SQE1 assessments.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you need to understand the rules relating to intoxication and its effect on establishing criminal liability. Intoxication is not a defence in itself but may be relevant where it prevents the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea for an offence. Your revision should focus on:
- The distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
- The difference between crimes of specific intent and basic intent.
- How voluntary intoxication may operate in relation to specific intent crimes but not basic intent crimes.
- How involuntary intoxication may operate in relation to both specific and basic intent crimes.
- The impact of intoxication on other defences, such as mistake in self-defence.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Can voluntary intoxication provide a defence to a charge of murder?
- Yes, always.
- No, never.
- Yes, if the defendant was so intoxicated they could not form the specific intent required.
- Yes, but only if the defendant was also suffering from a mental illness.
-
Which of the following offences is generally considered a crime of basic intent?
- Murder
- Theft
- Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
- Wounding with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861)
-
If a defendant's drink is spiked without their knowledge (involuntary intoxication), and they commit an assault (a basic intent crime), can they potentially rely on their intoxication?
- No, intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes.
- Yes, but only if they can also show they acted in self-defence.
- Yes, if the involuntary intoxication meant they lacked the necessary mens rea (intent or recklessness) for assault.
- No, unless the substance taken was a prescribed medication.
Introduction
Intoxication relates to the state of being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or another substance affecting mental judgment or physical control. In criminal law, intoxication is not a defence in itself. Instead, its relevance lies in whether the defendant possessed the required mens rea (guilty mind) for the offence charged at the time the actus reus (guilty act) was committed. If intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea, they may not be liable for the offence. The legal rules differ significantly depending on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary, and the type of crime involved (specific or basic intent).
Involuntary Intoxication
This occurs where a defendant becomes intoxicated through no fault of their own. This typically arises in two main situations: where the defendant's food or drink has been 'spiked' without their knowledge, or where they have an unexpected or unforeseeable reaction to prescribed medication taken in accordance with medical advice. Soporific drugs (drugs which induce drowsiness or sleep) taken voluntarily, where the effect is merely drowsiness, may also fall under this category if the defendant was not reckless in taking them.
Key Term: Involuntary Intoxication Intoxication caused by the administration of a substance without the defendant's knowledge or consent, or due to an unforeseen reaction to medication taken as prescribed.
Involuntary intoxication can potentially negate the mens rea for both specific and basic intent crimes. If the defendant, due to involuntary intoxication, did not form the necessary intention or recklessness required for the offence, they may be acquitted. However, the intoxication must have prevented the formation of the mens rea. If the defendant, despite being involuntarily intoxicated, still formed the necessary mens rea, they will remain liable (as established in R v Kingston). Drunken or drugged intent is still intent.
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication refers to situations where the defendant has knowingly consumed alcohol or drugs, or other intoxicating substances, where it is common knowledge that such substances may impair awareness or induce aggressive behaviour. This includes illegal drugs and alcohol, even if the defendant misjudges the strength or effect of the substance.
Key Term: Voluntary Intoxication Intoxication resulting from the defendant's willing consumption of alcohol or drugs, where the intoxicating effect is known or reasonably expected.
The effect of voluntary intoxication depends crucially on the type of offence charged, specifically whether it is a crime of specific intent or basic intent. This distinction was established in DPP v Majewski.
Specific Intent Offences
These are offences where the definition of the crime requires proof of intention as the mens rea; recklessness is not sufficient. Examples include murder (intention to kill or cause GBH), wounding or causing GBH with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861), and theft (intention to permanently deprive).
Key Term: Specific Intent Offence A crime where the mens rea requires proof of intention regarding one or more elements of the actus reus. Recklessness is insufficient.
Voluntary intoxication may be relevant to specific intent offences. If the defendant was so intoxicated that they were incapable of forming, and therefore did not form, the required specific intent, they cannot be convicted of that specific intent offence. However, they may still be convicted of a lesser, basic intent offence if one is available as an alternative. For example, a defendant charged with murder who successfully argues lack of specific intent due to voluntary intoxication may still be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter (a basic intent crime).
Basic Intent Offences
These are offences where the mens rea can be satisfied by proof of either intention or recklessness. Examples include assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), wounding or inflicting GBH (s.20 OAPA 1861), and unlawful act manslaughter.
Key Term: Basic Intent Offence A crime where the mens rea can be satisfied by proof of either intention or recklessness regarding an element of the actus reus.
Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to a crime of basic intent. The reasoning, established in DPP v Majewski, is that the act of becoming voluntarily intoxicated is considered reckless conduct in itself. This recklessness is sufficient to satisfy the mens rea requirement for any basic intent offence committed whilst intoxicated.
Dutch Courage
A defendant cannot rely on voluntary intoxication if they deliberately consumed intoxicants to gain the courage to commit an offence (the 'Dutch courage' rule). In such cases, the necessary mens rea existed before the intoxication took effect (Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher).
Worked Example 1.1
David is charged with theft (a specific intent crime). He took a bicycle from outside a pub, genuinely believing it was his own identical bike. He had consumed six pints of strong lager beforehand. He argues he only made the mistake because he was drunk.
Is David likely to be able to rely on his intoxication?
Answer: David's intoxication is voluntary. Theft requires dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive. If David genuinely believed the bike was his, he lacked dishonesty (s.2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968) and the intention to permanently deprive the true owner. If his intoxication was the reason for his mistaken belief, and this prevented him from forming the necessary specific intent (dishonesty and ITPD), then his intoxication could potentially lead to an acquittal for theft. The key is whether he formed the mens rea despite the intoxication.
Intoxication and Other Defences
Voluntary intoxication can also impact a defendant's ability to rely on other defences, particularly those involving a mistaken belief.
If a defendant makes a mistake about the need to use force in self-defence due to voluntary intoxication, they cannot rely on that mistake. The defence of self-defence requires the defendant's belief in the need for force to be genuinely held, but an intoxicated mistake is not considered a valid basis (R v O'Grady, R v Hatton). The defendant is judged against the standard of a reasonable sober person.
Similarly, for certain offences (like some sexual offences), a reasonable belief in consent is required. An intoxicated mistaken belief in consent would not be considered reasonable.
Worked Example 1.2
Anna is involuntarily intoxicated after her drink was spiked at a party. Mistakenly believing Ben is about to attack her, she pushes him away, causing him to fall and suffer minor bruising (actus reus for battery, a basic intent crime).
Can Anna rely on her intoxication?
Answer: Anna's intoxication is involuntary. Battery is a basic intent crime, requiring intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force. If Anna's involuntary intoxication prevented her from forming either the intention to apply force or the recklessness as to applying force (because she genuinely believed she was acting in self-defence due to the intoxication), she may be acquitted. The key is whether she lacked the necessary mens rea because of the involuntary intoxication.
Exam Warning
A common point of confusion is the phrase 'drunken intent is still intent'. Remember that intoxication, even if voluntary, only provides a potential basis for negating mens rea if the defendant was incapable of forming the required intent. If, despite the intoxication, the defendant still formed the necessary specific intent (for a specific intent crime), they remain liable. For basic intent crimes, voluntary intoxication supplies the necessary recklessness.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Intoxication is not a defence itself but may prevent the formation of mens rea.
- A distinction is drawn between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
- A distinction is drawn between specific intent and basic intent crimes.
- Voluntary intoxication can only potentially negate the mens rea for specific intent crimes.
- Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes (Majewski rule).
- Involuntary intoxication can potentially negate the mens rea for both specific and basic intent crimes.
- Intoxicated intent is still intent (Kingston).
- A defendant cannot rely on a mistake induced by voluntary intoxication for defences like self-defence.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Involuntary Intoxication
- Voluntary Intoxication
- Specific Intent Offence
- Basic Intent Offence
