CRIMINAL LAW REVISION NOTES
1. INTRODUCTION:
WHAT IS INTOXICATION?
• INTOXICATION: a defence raised in cases of drunkenness/ drug use to escape criminal
liability, by arguing there was no crime.
→ Statistic: 40% of violent crime involves the offender being under the influence of alcohol
(British Crime Survey 2015).
• FAILURE OF PROOF DEFENCE: intoxication is a failure of proof defence, where the
defendant attempts to argue that because the element of mens rea was not present, there
was no crime.
! The prosecution bears the burden of proof for this.
• NOT A TRUE EXCUSE: intoxication is not a ‘true excuse’, in the sense that the defendant
cannot argue that their crime was justifiable/ excusable. Rather, they can only argue that
there was no crime at all. This is so even where the intoxication was involuntary.
WHAT IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN INVOLUNTARY AND VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION?
• There are two forms of intoxication:
A. INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: intoxication will be deemed involuntary if the defendant is
deprived of a fair opportunity to conform. For example, if the defendant is coerced; if they
mistake what they are consuming; if the intoxicant is taken under a doctor’s prescription, as
long as they were adhering to the doctor’s orders; or if the defendant voluntarily took a
drug, but its intoxicating effect was unforeseen.
B. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: intoxication will be deemed voluntary in all other cases. For
example, if the defendant is addicted to alcohol/ the drug and is unable to resist its
temptation; if they misjudge the amount of alcohol they are taking/ its potency; if they
knowingly overdosed on a prescribed drug; or if they knowingly failed to follow medical
advice when taking the drug.
WHEN CAN THE DEFENCE BE USED?
• The use of intoxication as a defence is to negate mens rea. Thus, it can only be used where
the defendant is attempting to prove that they had no mens rea for the crime.
• Involuntary intoxication: the scope for negating mens rea through involuntary intoxication is
much wider. Evidence of involuntary intoxication can be used to negate mens rea in all
crimes of subjective mens rea. The offence must be one of specific intent
, CRIMINAL LAW REVISION NOTES
• Voluntary intoxication: the scope for negating mens rea through the voluntary intoxication
is limited. Evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used to negate mens rea in crimes of
specific intent only.
! If the crime charged requires proof of recklessness (crimes of recklessness), recklessness cannot be
negated by evidence of intoxication. It must be by intention only.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF THE DEFENCE?
• A successful application of intoxication results in an outright acquittal.
• However, it should be noted that the acquittal is only relevant for the offence it is being
applied to. Alternative charges may be brought where intoxication cannot be used as a
defence.
PROS AND CONS OF THE DEFENCE:
PROS: CONS:
• Evidence of intoxication can displace • If the definition of the offence
the inference that the accused foresaw committed does not require proof that
and intended the natural consequences the accused intended/ foresaw a
of their act. particular consequence, providing
proof of intoxication will be irrelevant.
→ Famous example cited in Kenny’s
Outlines of the Criminal Law: a baby’s → For example, a person charged with
nurse becomes very drunk at the baby’s causing death by dangerous driving
christening and places the baby on the while drunk does not have to intend/
fire, instead of a log of wood. The foresee death. In fact, raising
intoxication defence can be used to intoxication would worsen the
resist the inference that she intended to situation.
kill the baby. If she were sober, it would
have been difficult to conclude
otherwise.
SUMMARY OF FRAMEWORK:
Essentially, we must two questions to determine the availability of the intoxication defence:
1. Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
2. Is the offence the defendant is being charged with one of specific intent, or basic intent?
⇩
2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTOXICATION:
• It does not matter if the defendant would not have committed the crime if they were sober
and only did so because they were inhibited. The mens rea for the crime will not be negated.
1. INTRODUCTION:
WHAT IS INTOXICATION?
• INTOXICATION: a defence raised in cases of drunkenness/ drug use to escape criminal
liability, by arguing there was no crime.
→ Statistic: 40% of violent crime involves the offender being under the influence of alcohol
(British Crime Survey 2015).
• FAILURE OF PROOF DEFENCE: intoxication is a failure of proof defence, where the
defendant attempts to argue that because the element of mens rea was not present, there
was no crime.
! The prosecution bears the burden of proof for this.
• NOT A TRUE EXCUSE: intoxication is not a ‘true excuse’, in the sense that the defendant
cannot argue that their crime was justifiable/ excusable. Rather, they can only argue that
there was no crime at all. This is so even where the intoxication was involuntary.
WHAT IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN INVOLUNTARY AND VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION?
• There are two forms of intoxication:
A. INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: intoxication will be deemed involuntary if the defendant is
deprived of a fair opportunity to conform. For example, if the defendant is coerced; if they
mistake what they are consuming; if the intoxicant is taken under a doctor’s prescription, as
long as they were adhering to the doctor’s orders; or if the defendant voluntarily took a
drug, but its intoxicating effect was unforeseen.
B. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: intoxication will be deemed voluntary in all other cases. For
example, if the defendant is addicted to alcohol/ the drug and is unable to resist its
temptation; if they misjudge the amount of alcohol they are taking/ its potency; if they
knowingly overdosed on a prescribed drug; or if they knowingly failed to follow medical
advice when taking the drug.
WHEN CAN THE DEFENCE BE USED?
• The use of intoxication as a defence is to negate mens rea. Thus, it can only be used where
the defendant is attempting to prove that they had no mens rea for the crime.
• Involuntary intoxication: the scope for negating mens rea through involuntary intoxication is
much wider. Evidence of involuntary intoxication can be used to negate mens rea in all
crimes of subjective mens rea. The offence must be one of specific intent
, CRIMINAL LAW REVISION NOTES
• Voluntary intoxication: the scope for negating mens rea through the voluntary intoxication
is limited. Evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used to negate mens rea in crimes of
specific intent only.
! If the crime charged requires proof of recklessness (crimes of recklessness), recklessness cannot be
negated by evidence of intoxication. It must be by intention only.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF THE DEFENCE?
• A successful application of intoxication results in an outright acquittal.
• However, it should be noted that the acquittal is only relevant for the offence it is being
applied to. Alternative charges may be brought where intoxication cannot be used as a
defence.
PROS AND CONS OF THE DEFENCE:
PROS: CONS:
• Evidence of intoxication can displace • If the definition of the offence
the inference that the accused foresaw committed does not require proof that
and intended the natural consequences the accused intended/ foresaw a
of their act. particular consequence, providing
proof of intoxication will be irrelevant.
→ Famous example cited in Kenny’s
Outlines of the Criminal Law: a baby’s → For example, a person charged with
nurse becomes very drunk at the baby’s causing death by dangerous driving
christening and places the baby on the while drunk does not have to intend/
fire, instead of a log of wood. The foresee death. In fact, raising
intoxication defence can be used to intoxication would worsen the
resist the inference that she intended to situation.
kill the baby. If she were sober, it would
have been difficult to conclude
otherwise.
SUMMARY OF FRAMEWORK:
Essentially, we must two questions to determine the availability of the intoxication defence:
1. Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
2. Is the offence the defendant is being charged with one of specific intent, or basic intent?
⇩
2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTOXICATION:
• It does not matter if the defendant would not have committed the crime if they were sober
and only did so because they were inhibited. The mens rea for the crime will not be negated.
