H418/01 - Intoxication and evaluation

Intoxication and the fault required

Intoxication is a state caused by alcohol, drugs or another substance that affects a person’s mental functioning. Its legal importance usually concerns mens rea, the fault required by the offence, rather than a free-standing excuse for bad behaviour.

Always identify the offence and the fault it requires. Specific-intent offences require the relevant particular intention: murder requires intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm; theft requires dishonesty and intention permanently to deprive; section 18 grievous bodily harm requires its specific intent. Basic-intent offences can be satisfied by a lesser fault such as recklessness: examples include assault, battery, section 47 actual bodily harm and section 20 wounding or grievous bodily harm. The labels are legal classifications, not a scale of how serious an offence is. Battery may be committed intentionally but remains a basic-intent offence.

Read the statute's words through their legal interpretation. For example, section 20's maliciously means intending or foreseeing some bodily harm, rather than acting out of spite. Section 18's relevant with intent requirement in the grievous-bodily-harm example demands the specified intent, not merely that lower level of foresight. Everyday meanings alone can therefore mislead the fault analysis.

For specific intent, the prosecution must prove that the defendant actually formed the required intention despite the intoxication. In R v Sheehan and Moore (1975), the court emphasised that a drunken intention remains an intention. The issue is what the person intended, rather than whether they would have behaved that way sober or whether intoxication could theoretically impair someone.

For example, a drunk defendant who carefully selects a victim and attacks intending really serious injury can still have murder’s mens rea. A defendant so intoxicated that the required intent is genuinely unproved may escape that specific-intent conviction. That does not necessarily remove liability for a lesser basic-intent offence whose other elements are proved.

Voluntary intoxication and basic intent

Voluntary intoxication normally occurs when a person knowingly consumes alcohol or an intoxicating drug. Being surprised by its strength does not turn a deliberate drink into a spiked drink. R v Allen (1988) illustrates that distinction.

In DPP v Majewski (1976), a defendant voluntarily took drink and drugs and committed violent assaults. The House of Lords upheld the rule that voluntary intoxication cannot be used to deny the mens rea of basic-intent offences. The policy is that a person should not avoid responsibility for such violence through their own decision to become intoxicated. It is inaccurate to say that every drunk person is guilty: the prosecution must still prove the offence’s other requirements.

Contrast two original applications. Cam voluntarily drinks heavily and punches Dan, but says intoxication prevented awareness of the risk of unlawful force. Battery is basic intent, so that intoxication-based denial does not provide a defence. If Cam is charged with section 18 on proof of really serious injury, the prosecution must prove the specific intent required by section 18; drinking alone neither proves nor defeats it. If specific intent is unproved, section 20 may still be available if its elements are established.

There is also Dutch courage. In Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963), the defendant formed a plan to kill and drank to carry it out. A person cannot create a defence by deliberately becoming intoxicated for an already intended crime. This prevents planning followed by self-induced intoxication from undermining responsibility.

Involuntary intoxication and medication

Involuntary intoxication can arise when a drink is secretly spiked or from an unforeseen adverse reaction to properly taken prescribed medication. The defendant can rely on its effect on mens rea for either basic or specific intent, but absence of fault must be a real issue.

In R v Kingston (1994), the defendant was drugged without his knowledge but committed an intentional indecent assault. The House of Lords held that involuntary intoxication is no defence where the required mens rea was actually formed. The fact that drugs removed inhibitions did not remove intent. This reflects a distinction between intending conduct and being less able or willing to resist a temptation.

Medication requires care. In R v Hardie (1985), the defendant took Valium, understood as a calming drug, then set fire to property. The court distinguished drugs not ordinarily known to produce aggression or unpredictability from alcohol and dangerous drugs. For a basic-intent offence, a relevant question was whether he was reckless in taking it, knowing the risk of unpredictable or aggressive behaviour. Hardie does not make every use of tablets involuntary or every calming drug safe.

An original patient takes the correct prescribed dose, follows instructions and has an unforeseeable reaction preventing the required awareness: that supports a lack-of-mens-rea argument. A person deliberately combines pills with alcohol despite a known warning about aggression presents a very different prior-fault case. Establish what was taken, what the person knew and what mental state they actually had during the alleged offence. “No memory next morning” proves neither lack of intention nor an unexpected reaction.