Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant takes the drink or drugs of his own free will.

Involuntary intoxication is where a person does not know he was taking alcohol or an
intoxicating drug

R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) 60 Cr App R 308

The two appellants, in a drunken state, poured petrol over a man and set light to him causing
his death.

Held:

The relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea it
was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent. The
burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution.

".....in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant's men's rea is an
issue, we think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that
the defendant's mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not
have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention
was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.

The jury is to be directed to have regard to all the evidence, including that relating to drink, to
draw such inferences as they think proper from the evidence, and on that basis to ask
themselves whether they feel sure that at the material time the defendant had the requisite
intent."

Sheehan & Moore v R (1975): In revenge for a minor theft the two D’s, who were
voluntarily drunk poured petrol of the V and set him on fire, killing him. D’s arguments were
similar to Beard. It was held as the P could not establish specific intent for GBH S18 then
they were not guilty of murder. However, the D’s were found guilty of the alternative basic
intent crime of manslaughter, so where there is an alternative basic intent crime recklessness
may be proved for this offence.

DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479 House of Lords

The appellant whilst intoxicated raped a 13 year old girl and put his hand over her mouth to
stop her from screaming. She died of suffocation.

Lord Birkenhead LC:

"Under the law of England as it prevailed until early in the 19th century voluntary
drunkenness was never an excuse for criminal misconduct; and indeed the classic authorities
broadly assert that voluntary drunkenness must be considered rather an aggravation than a
defence. This view was in terms based upon the principle that a man who by his own
voluntary act debauches and destroys his will power shall be no better situated in regard to
criminal acts than a sober man.

Where a specific intent is an essential element in the offence, evidence of a state of

drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into
consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the intent necessary to
constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent
required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was
proved. ... In a charge of murder based upon intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, if
the jury are satisfied that the accused was, by reason of his drunken condition, incapable of
forming the intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm ... he cannot be convicted of murder.
But nevertheless unlawful homicide has been committed by the accused, and consequently he
is guilty of unlawful homicide without malice aforethought, and that is manslaughter"

Beard decision:His conviction for murder was quashed on the basis that murder was a crime in
which required the prosecution to prove a specific intent to kill or cause gbh.This they could not
do.They could prove only an intent to rape

DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443 House of Lords

The appellant had taken a substantial quantity of drugs over a 48 hour period. He then went to
a pub and had a drink. He got into a fight with two others. The landlord went to break up the
fight and the appellant attacked him. When the police arrived, he assaulted the arresting
officer. Another officer was struck by the appellant when he was being driven to the police
station. The next morning he attacked a police inspector in his cell. He was charged with four
counts of occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of assaulting a police constable in
the execution of his duty. The appellant claimed he had no recollection of the events due to
his intoxication. He was found guilty on all counts and appealed contending that he could not
be convicted when he lacked the mens rea of the offences due to his intoxicated state.

Held:

Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld. The crime was one of basic intent and therefore his
intoxication could not be relied on as a defence.

Majweski v DPP (1977), D was voluntarily intoxicated in a pub and was refused alcohol. D
got very aggressive and the police were called. The landlord tried to get D to leave but D
attacked him and spat in his face. The HL held:

1. Self-induced intoxication can only be raised as a defence to crimes of specific intent,

but not to crimes of basic intent.
2. The Majewski rule states that Self-induced (voluntary) intoxication is no defence to a
crime of basic intent as the defendant’s actions in becoming intoxicated voluntarily is
in itself reckless behaviour – he knows there is a risk he will behave badly or
criminally, but goes ahead anyway.
3.In otherwords, as long as the P can prove D was drunk at some time upto and including
the offence this satisfies the MR of the offence.

Intoxication and Dutch courage

Where a person forms the intention to commit a crime and then

drinks in order to enable them to carry out the crime, they cannot
then claim the intoxication prevented them from forming the mens
rea: Attorney General for NI v Gallagher [1963]

AG for NI v Gallagher (1963):

D wished to kill his wife so in order to pluck the courage (Dutch courage) he drank a bottle of
whisky before stabbing her to death. It was held that as he had formed the intention to kill her
before he became intoxicated, he had no defence of intoxication.

R v Allen (2002): D was charged with buggery after an evening drinking and argued he
didn’t realise the strength of the alcohol, so this made it involuntary intoxication. Where the
defendant does not realise the strength of the alcohol or drug he has taken, it does not make
the intoxication involuntary.

R v Hardie (1985): D took some valium for his anxiety and depression after falling out with
his partner and threatening to leave her. The valium was not his prescription but the normal
effect on a person would be to calm them down. However, D suffered from an unusual
reaction to the drug as it made him more angry resulting in him setting fire to a wardrobe. D
argued that the unexpected reaction to this drug made his actions involuntary.

It was held that where the defendant takes a non-dangerous drug or prescription drug the
taking may be treated as involuntary and may therefore provide a defence if he does so non-
recklessly and suffers from an uncommon reaction. The jury need to consider whether the
drug has a recognised common reaction that is different from the D’s reaction. If the D’s
reaction is uncommon this case be classed as involuntary intoxication. However, where the
drug can be said to be dangerous, there may be recklessness in self-administering it, which
would be the case when the drug was well known for causing the effects.

R v Kingston (1994):
Where the D’s drink was spiked by his friend and D was then allowed to sexually abuse a
young boy. D argued the sexual abuse was involuntary. The House of Lords stated that
involuntary intoxication was not a defence to a charge if it was proved that the defendant had
the necessary intent when the offence was committed, even though he was not to blame for
the intoxication. A loosening of the D’s inhibitions was not sufficient to negate the D’s mens
rea for the crime.

Self-defence
1 This covers not only actions needed to defend oneself from an attack,
but also actions taken to defend another or prevent crime (s 3 Criminal
Law Act 1967).

2 The defence can be a defence to any crime, including murder, as the

defendant is justifying the use of force.

3 The force used to defend oneself or another must be reasonable in

the circumstances.

TUTORIAL
1.Dutch courage is drinking alcohol in order to give oneself the confidence to commit the
crime

A.TRUE

B.FALSE

2.Intoxication may be voluntary only

A.FALSE

B.TRUE

3.Define involuntary intoxication

A.defendant is unaware that he has ingested drugs or alcohol

B.defendant is aware that he has ingested drugs or alcohol

C.defendant has knowingly ingested alcohol

D.defendant has knowingly ingested drugs

4.A drunken intent is sufficient for mens rea

A.FALSE

B.TRUE

5. Which of the following cases involved the defendant attacked a police officer whilst
voluntarily intoxicated

A.R v Woods(1982)

B.Gallagher(1963)

C.R v Hardie(1985)

D.DPP v Majewski(1977)
6. What is the significance of the case DPP v Majewski(1977)?

A.voluntary intoxication is not available as a defence for a basic intent offence

B.voluntary intoxication is available as a defence for a basic intent offence

C.Defendant can use the defence of intoxication

D.voluntary intoxication is available as a defence

7. Which of the following cases involved the defendant took a valium prescribed for
his girlfriend after an argument?

A.DPP v Majewski(1995)

B.R v Kingston(1995)

C.R v Hardie(1985)

D.Allen(1988)

8.Which of the following cases involves the defence of involuntary intoxication is not
available if defendant has the mens rea for the offence?

A.M'Naghten Rules(1843)

B.Kingston(1994)

C.Sullivan(1984)

D.Burgess(1991)

9.For specific intent crime like murder,the defendant cannot use the defence of intoxication

A.TRUE

B.FALSE
10.For basic intent offence like assault and battery,involuntary intoxication can be used as a
defence

A.TRUE

B.FALSE

Intoxication
1. Intoxication is a
● Specific defence to murder
● General defence

2. In charge of murder, what is the result of a successful reliance on intoxication to negate

mens rea?
● Defendant will be found “not guilty”, and he will be set free into society.
● Defendant will be found “not guilty by reason of insanity”, and the judge has a dispositive
discretion to detain him in a mental hospital.

3. After a night of heavy drinking in the bar, Q arrived home drunk. Q’s partner, R was very
upset and gave Q a severe scolding for Q’s drunkenness. This annoyed Q greatly, and a
fight ensued between the angry couple in the kitchen. As Q was drunk at the time, Q was not
thinking right and was unable to control himself. As a result, intending to kill R, Q took a knife
and stabbed R to death. Based on your knowledge of mens rea and murder from the
previous topics, did Q have the mens rea for murder?
● Yes
● No

4. After a night of heavy drinking in the bar, K arrived home drunk. K’s partner, L was very
upset and gave K a severe scolding for K’s drunkenness. This annoyed K greatly, and a fight
ensued between the angry couple in the kitchen. During the argument, K was so angry that
he decided to throw L’s large beautiful vase which L loved very much and destroy it.
However, due to K’s drunkenness, K did not realise where L was standing, and the vase
knocked into L, severely injuring L and causing L to bleed to death. Based on your
knowledge of mens rea and murder from the previous topics, did Q have the mens rea for
murder?
● Yes
● No

5. In a charge for murder, where the defendant raises the issue of intoxication to show that
he has no mens rea or murder, who bears the burden of proving mens rea?
● It is for the prosecutor to prove that there was mens rea for murder, in line with
Woolmington v DPP.
● The defence must prove that the defendant was so intoxicated that he can form the mens
rea of murder