The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

With regards to specific intent crimes for example murder, self-intoxication is a defense or more rightly a mitigating factor, but one the court will allow only sparingly i.e. the court, or the jury will look into all the evidence that is available to them as per s.8 of the Criminal Justice Act (1967) and decide if the defense should be made available to the defendant or if the court will accept the defendant’s plea and the reluctance of the court is primarily because of public interest or public policy reasons in that an innocent member of the public should be protected from the drunken mistake of another especially given the fact that the defendant got drunk on his own accord. It might be different if the defendant had been forced to drink or someone had pointed a gun to the defendant’s head and made him drink or if his drink was spiked but unless that was the case, the courts will show some reluctance in allowing the defense. In R v Stubbs (1989) the defendant who was dru

If the defendant makes a mistake as to the potency or the strength of the drugs or alcoholic beverage he has taken or consumed, and then commits a crime and seeks to rely on intoxication, the defense will not be made available to him and the fact that he was intoxicated will not reduce the severity of the crime or the offence. The rules with regards to self-intoxication will apply as they are. In R v Allen (1988) the defendant drank some home-made wine, and the drink was stronger than normal or the alcoholic content in the drink was higher than normal. The defendant in his intoxicated state committed sexual assault and during the trial sought to rely on the defense of intoxication. It was held that regardless of the strength of the drink or the fact that the defendant had made a mistake as to its potency, the consumption of the drink was still voluntary and thus the defense of intoxication would not avail itself to him especially in light of the fact that sexual assault is a

Intoxication is not available as a defense when the defendant makes a mistake in instances of self-intoxication. Prior to reaching a verdict the jury will take into account all the evidence that is made available to them as per Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act (1967). In R v O’Grady (1987) the appellant and the victim were friends and they had spent the day, in the company of another friend, drinking. Between them they had consumed eight flagons of cider after which they retired to the appellant’s home. According to the appellant he was woken up by the victim and the appellant in self-defense picked up some broken glass and started hitting the victim over the head. Once the fight had subsisted, they patched things up and he cooked both his friends a meal and the three of them then went to bed. The defendant and the other friend woke up the next morning to find the victim dead in bed, he had died as a result of blood loss and further investigation revealed that the v

A year later in R v Hardie (1984) another exception was added, in that, while intoxication was not a defense to basic intent crimes, it is a mitigating factor when the drugs that were taken were merely soporific or sedative. It is to some extent possible to say that intoxication is not a defense to basic intent crimes or crimes where the mens rea to obtain a conviction are negligence and recklessness only with regards to offences that are committed after the defendant had been drinking or drinking excessively or after taking illegal drugs or dangerous drugs. In R v Hardie (1984) the defendant who was distressed after he’d broken up with his partner and was asked to leave the flat, took some out of date valium tablets that were not prescribed to him, and returned later and set fire to a wardrobe in his bedroom. The defendant was charged under s.1(2) and s.1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act (1971) which reads as follows: - s.1(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or dam

With regards to the rule that intoxication is not a defense or is not a mitigating factor in basic intent crimes, there may be an exception when the acts of the defendant are a result or resulted from automatism, i.e. automatism is an exception to the rule that intoxication does not mitigate or reduce the severity of a basic intent crime. However, if there is intent, or the prosecution can establish intention, bearing in mind that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the defense would not avail itself to the defendant. In R v Bailey (1983) the defendant a diabetic went over to the house of his ex-lover’s new partner (victim), clearly upset over the fact that his ex-girlfriend had moved on. The victim invited the defendant in to discuss the matter, and the defendant who had taken his insulin but had not consumed any food, prior to the visit, felt that he was going into hypoglycemic, a state caused by a lack of glucose in the body and asked the victim for a glass of sug

If the defendant makes a mistake with regards to damage to property that a normal person who was not under the influence of drinks or drugs would have made, then regardless of the fact that the defendant was intoxicated, the defense of mistaken belief will be made available to the defendant as per s.5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The section and subsection read as follows: - s.5(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse— (a) If at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances

In 1977 as per the decision in DPP v Majewski (1977) it was decided that intoxication is not a defense when the crime that is committed is a basic intent crime. A basic intent crime is a crime where the mens rea is usually recklessness or negligence or where the defendant has not given any thought to the consequences of his actions or having given it some thought has dismissed it. In DPP v Majewski (1977) the defendant was involved in a brawl in a pub during the course of which, he assaulted two customers, the publican, the arresting police officer and two more police officers at the station, including an inspector in his cell. The defendant argued that at the time he was severely intoxicated having been drinking and taking drugs and therefore he lacked the intention to commit the offences or did not intent to commit the offences i.e. he did not have the mens rea that was required for a conviction. In determining whether the defendant is guilty or otherwise, the court does n

If the defendant became intoxicated because of external factors or factors that were to some degree or extent beyond his or her control then that might be a mitigating factor that might reduce the severity of the crime for example in instances of automatism. There are two types of automatism:- Automatism that arises as a result of the defendant’s failure to do something or the defendant overdoing something that he is supposed to do. This type of automatism is considered or regarded as intoxication. 1.      Automatism that is precipitated by natural causes i.e. a sickness or an illness. This type of automatism is regarded as insanity. 2.      Automatism per se is the defendant’s inability to control himself or herself, and it works in the same manner that an impulse control disorder does. However, impulse control disorders are inherent conditions that exist throughout whereas automatism only arises at certain times and in most instances if the defendant takes his or her

In order to decide whether intoxication should avail itself to the defendant on otherwise the court or the jury should take into account all the evidence that is made available to them as per s.8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which reads as follows: - Proof of Criminal Intent A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence – (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances. In R v Lipman (1969) the accused was high on LSD and was hallucinating at the time. He was, as far as he was concerned, battling serpents somewhere and unwittingly stuffed bed sheets into the mouth of a little girl who died as a result. The accused was charged with murder

If the defendant either drinks (alcohol) or takes drugs to fortify his courage or to give him “dutch courage” then regardless of whether the crime that is committed is a basic intent crime or a specific intent crime he would not be able to rely on the fact that he was intoxicated at the time and did not have the mens rea to commit the crime as a mitigating factor to reduce the severity of the act. In Attorney-General of Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1961) the accused had a violent twist to his personality and often acted in a deranged manner, especially after he had consumed alcohol and was particularly violent towards his wife. The accused spent some time in a mental institution, for which he blamed his wife and upon release he made up his mind to kill her. However, in order to work himself into a fit or to have the courage to kill his wife, he drank down a bottle of whisky, and once he had reached the level of intoxication where he was deprived of his senses, he killed his