#5821 - Defences Intoxication - Irish Criminal Law

Intoxication

R v Lipman (CA 1969)

Facts

• The defendant voluntarily consumed LSD and then murdered his friend while under the influence.

Issue

• Intoxication – Drugs

Judgment

• Widgery LJ (concurring)

• For the purposes of ascertaining voluntariness there is no distinction between drugs voluntarily taken and drunkeness voluntarily induced.

• It may affect the mens rea but has no effect on the voluntariness of the actus reus

• Fenton Atkinson LJ (concurred)

• James LJ (concurred)

DPP v Beard (HoL 1920)

Facts

• The accused raped and murdered a thirteen year old girl.

• In his defence he claimed that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.

Issue

• Intoxication – Definition - Availablity

Judgment (Lord Birkenhead LC)

• Insanity produced by drunkeness, e.g. delirium tremens, is a defence.

• Evidence of drunkeness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into account (with other facts) in determining whether or not he had this intent.

• If the drunkeness did not render him incapable of forming the intent, but merely made him more susceptible to some violent passion, it does not rebut the presumption that an accused intends the natural consequences of his acts.

• In this case intoxication is no defence unless the accused was rendered incapable of forming the requisite intention to commit the crime – on the evidence this was not the case.

R v Majewski (HoL 1976)

Facts

• The plaintiff was charged with assault.

• He claimed that he lacked the necessary mens rea as he was intoxicated

Issue

• Intoxication – Basic intent

Judgment

• The common law rule is that voluntary intoxication is not a defence, except where a specific intention has to be proved.

• per Lord Elwyn-Jone LC

• The common law rule is not unjust – in bringing himself into the intoxicated condition the accused has the mens rea of recklessness.

• It would present practical difficulties for the administration of justice if the rule in general were to be relaxed.

• Lord Simon of Glaisdale

• To relax the rule as suggested would result in removing the protection of the law from people subject to unprovoked violence where the violence arose out of intoxication.

• Lord Salmon – There is a certain illogicality in that the law can negative specific intent but not general intent, however the law is a creature of common sense, not logic.

R v Caldwell (HoL 1981)

Facts

• The accused set fire to a hotel where he worked and against whose owner he bore a grudge.

• He claimed that he was so drunk at the time that he failed to appreciate that he was endangering the lives of the people within.

Issue

• Intoxication – Basic Intent

Judgment

• Lord Wilberforce (dissenting – agreed with Lord Edumund-Davies)

• Lord Diplock (concurring)

• Evidence of self-induced drunkeness could not be a defence when the charge included a reference to being reckless as to danger to life or property – deliberately robbing oneself of the restraints of reason and conscience is a reckless act.

• Where part of a mental element of a crime involves being aware of something, an intoxicated defendant will not escape liability unless he would not have been aware of that element when sober.

• Lord Edmund-Davies (dissenting)

• In relation to crimes of specific intent, incapacity, arising out of self-intoxication, to appreciate the nature and degree of the risk created by one's actions is a defence.

• Lord Keith of Kinkel (concurring – agreed with Lord Diplock)

• Lord Roskill (concurring – agreed with Lord Diplock)

R v Fotheringham (CA 1988)

Facts

• The accused raped his fourteen year old baby sitter and in his defence claimed that he was so drunk that he believed he was having sex with his wife.

Issue

• Intoxication – Basic Intent

Judgment (Watkins LJ)

• Self-induced intoxication is no defence where the issue is intention, consent or mistake as to the identity of the victim – all these things must be judged as to whether the accused would have made such errors of judgment when sober.

• Per Caldwell – Self-intoxication is not a defence where recklessness is enough to constitute the mens rea.

People v Manning (CCA 1953)

Facts

• The accused was charged with murder and sought to rely on intoxication as a defence.

Issue

• Intoxication - Murder

Judgment (Maguire J)

• Drunkeness is not a defence in a case such as this unless the accused was so drunk that it rebuts the presumption that he intended the ordinary and natural consequences of his action, i.e. that his drunkeness rendered him incapable of knowing that what he was doing was likely to cause serious injury.

People v McBride (CCA 1996)

Facts

• The accused was charged with three counts of assault.

• He claimed he had commited the assault when he suffered a fit of rage partly resulting from his having drank the night before.

Issue

• Intoxication

Judgment (Blayney J)

• There was no point in allowing the issue of intoxication to be put to the jury, as there was no evidence that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the crime.

People v Murphy (CCA 2004)

Facts

• The accused murdered a baby while intoxicated.

Issue

• Intoxication – Automatism

Judgment (McCracken J)

• This case must not be decided on logic, but on a balance of the right of an individual not to be convicted for a crime he was incapable of refraining from, against the right of the public to be protected from acts of violence.

• If a person consumes alcohol to the extent that their propensity to commit acts of violence increases, then the Court must not allow the cause of this violence (the alcohol) to excuse his actions.

R v O'Connor (Aus HC 1980)

Facts

• The accused carried out an assault and a theft under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Issue

• Intoxication – Australian Approach

Judgment

• Barwick CJ (concurring)

• It is odd that intoxication may be a defence to a crime where the mens rea applies not to an intent to do a certain physical act, but only to one where it applies to achieving a particular result.

• Thus evidence of intoxication, self-induced or otherwise, is relevant and admissible in determining whether the accused has the requisite mental element.

• The recklessness of consuming intoxicating quantities of drugs or alcohol is of a different order to the recklessness involved in performing a criminal act.

• The public policy considerations can not outweigh the principles of the common law which require mens rea for crime, particularly when those principles have been formulated to balance the public and individual interests.

• A statute providing alternate sanctions for those who had committed crimes while drunk would be well-advised.

• Gibbs J (dissenting)

• There is no problem with the distinction between crimes of basic and specific intent, and there are sound reasons why intoxication should not be a defence for the former – there is moral culpability in drunkeness, but an inability to from specific intent.

• It is in no way unjust to punish someone who commits a crime while drunk.

• Stephen J (concurring)

• The Majewski doctrine runs contrary to common law principles which always require a mental element – to be justified it must be grounded on compelling public policy considerations.

• In Victoria, where the Majewski doctrine holds no force, the ordinary principles of common law have created no problems.

• In addition there are cases which offend the principle of basic justice – e.g. individual's convicted of crime whose intoxication is only the result of peer pressure or misjudgment.

• It's deterrent effect is dubious, and would be better served by the creation of a new defence.

• Mason J (dissenting)

• Majewski should be followed – A) it accurately reflects the common law in England and other jurisdictions, B) it is a suitable compromise between the rights of society and the individual.

• Murphy J (concurring)

• The problem with not allowing intoxication as a defence, is that it creates constructive crime i.e. it creates the intent – intoxication should be allowed as evidence in regard the mental element, whether it tends to prove or disprove that element.

• Aickin J (concurring)

• Drunkeness should be taken into account by the jury along with all the other factors in determining whether or not the accused has actually formed the requisite intent.

• If it lowers inhibitions, making it easier for the accused to commit a crime, it will not negative intent and if the accused forsees that drinking may make him a danger to others, he may be reckless.

• Wilson J (dissenting)

• Majewski represents the common law and judicial legislation would be controversial.

Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (HoL 1961)

Facts

• The accused had psychopathic tendencies and one night purchased a bottle of whiskey and a knife, drank the whiskey and murdered his wife.

• The Crown submitted a point of law of public importance to the House of Lords on whether a latent psychological condition brought to the fore by alcohol was covered by the McNaghten rules.

Issue

• Intoxication – Insanity

Judgment

• Lord Reid (concurring – agreed with Lord Tucker)

• Lord Goddard (concurring)

• If someone suffers from a condition, whereby the consumption of alcohol has an explosive effect i.e. causes the accused to lose self-control, self-induced intoxication is not a defence.

• Lord Tucker (concurring)

• Lord Denning (concurring)

• Drunkeness or any defect created by drunkeness is no defence to a crime – it may reduce a mans powers of perception or foresight, his...