Intoxication in English law is a circumstance which may alter the capacity of a defendant to form mens rea, where a charge is one of specific intent, or may entirely negate mens rea where the intoxication is involuntary. The fact that a defendant is intoxicated in the commission of a crime — whether voluntarily or not — has never been regarded as a full defence to criminal proceedings (unlike statutory defences such as self defence). Its development at

common law In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipres ...

has been shaped by the acceptance that intoxicated individuals do not think or act as rationally as they would otherwise, but also by a

public policy Public policy is an institutionalized proposal or a decided set of elements like laws, regulations, guidelines, and actions to solve or address relevant and real-world problems, guided by a conception and often implemented by programs. Public p ...

necessity to punish individuals who commit crimes.

Voluntary intoxication

The

Earl of Birkenhead Earl of Birkenhead was a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1922 for the noted lawyer and Conservative Party (UK), Conservative politician F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead, F. E. Smith, 1st Viscount Birkenhead. He w ...

stated in 1920 that until the early 19th century voluntary drunkenness was never a defence, based on 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". This was considered the authority by Lord Elwyn-Jones in the ''Majewski'' case. Instead, intoxication may assist the defence arguing that the defendant lacked the appropriate ''mens rea'' (mental element) for the crime.

Specific and basic intent

In ''Majewski'', Lord Elwyn-Jones, giving judgement, indicated that a crime was one of specific intent if the ''mens rea'' went further than the ''actus reus''; in other words, that the crime was one of ulterior intent. This makes sense in the case of burglary and of criminal damage with intent to endanger life, where the intent need not be carried out, and which have been judged crimes of specific intent. However, this fails to explain why murder is considered a crime of specific intent, despite the fact that its mental aspect is equal or less than the ''actus reus'' requirement of causing death. Lord Simon's judgement in the same case advanced a different definition: crimes of specific intent required a "purposive element". The court in ''Heard'' considered a specific intent one which fitted either possible definition. However, murder is again an exception: it can be committed not by intent but by virtual certainty. Lord Elwyn-Jones also expressed that if a crime could be committed recklessly, it was one of basic intent. This is supported by a number of academics, who do however consider it a matter for the common law to establish by precedent. Case law has established that murder, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent,

theft Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word ''theft'' is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for som ...

, robbery, burglary with intent to steal,

handling stolen goods Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods. In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods (or property) and knew they were stolen, then the individua ...

, some forms of criminal damage, and any attempt to commit a crime of specific intent are themselves crimes of specific intent. Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent. If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal. A reduction in the strength of the formed intent is insufficient. Manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, kidnapping and false imprisonment,

assault occasioning actual bodily harm Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (often abbreviated to Assault OABH, AOABH or simply ABH) is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong an ...

and

common assault Common may refer to: Places * Common, a townland in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland * Boston Common, a central public park in Boston, Massachusetts * Cambridge Common, common land area in Cambridge, Massachusetts * Clapham Common, originally com ...

have all been judged crimes of basic intent. The court in ''Majewski'' refers to intoxication as a

defence Defense or defence may refer to: Tactical, martial, and political acts or groups * Defense (military), forces primarily intended for warfare * Civil defense, the organizing of civilians to deal with emergencies or enemy attacks * Defense indus ...

. If this were the case, in crimes of basic intent where it does not provide a defence, the counsel for the defendant could not argue that the defendant did not have the required ''mens rea'' because of intoxication. Accordingly, the ''mens rea'' become irrelevant and the Crown need not show it, thereby aiding the prosecution considerably. The alternative is that the voluntary intoxication provides a "prior fault" which substitutes for the ''mens rea'' required. However, the taking of alcohol or drugs probably bears little similarity to the rest of the crime the defendant stands accused of it. The alternative would be to require the prosecution to still show the required ''mens rea''. Neither possibility has been explored in the common law. Accordingly, it only possible to say that the defence cannot argue that intoxication provides a defence, where recklessness has been shown on the fact, in crimes of basic intent. It is possible that the prosecution would be allowed, in certain circumstances, to dispense with the original ''mens rea'' entirely and rely solely on the voluntary intoxication to provide the fault element.

Dutch courage

While generally an intoxicated individual cannot form specific intent to perform a crime, an exception to this rule is provided by the case of '' A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher''. Here,

Lord Denning Alfred Thompson "Tom" Denning, Baron Denning (23 January 1899 – 5 March 1999) was an English lawyer and judge. He was called to the bar of England and Wales in 1923 and became a King's Counsel in 1938. Denning became a judge in 1944 wh ...

stated the principle that if an individual forms an intention to commit a crime, and then intoxicates himself, the mens rea of his actions is not diminished to basic intent:

Involuntary intoxication

Unlike cases where a defendant has intoxicated himself voluntarily, the courts have taken a far more lenient view of defendants who become intoxicated through no fault of their own. Involuntary intoxication is not necessarily a full defence to criminal charges, as there are several qualifications to what can be called 'involuntary', some of which have met criticism and calls for reform. Nevertheless, a defendant who successfully argues involuntary intoxication will not be held culpable for actions they carried out while intoxicated. The first qualification to this is that a defendant cannot claim they are involuntarily intoxicated simply because they were misinformed or wrong about the alcohol content of what they were drinking.Jefferson, p. 280 Thus in ''R v Allen'' a man who committed indecent assault and buggery was convicted, with his argument rejected that he did not realise the wine he was drinking was strongly alcoholic. A second limitation imposed by the courts is that the defendant must have been exceptionally intoxicated in order to argue he had no mens rea to commit a crime.Jefferson, p. 281 In effect, this means that – as was originally stated a century ago in ''R v Beard'' – it is no defence that one loses his inhibitions due to involuntary intoxication, and goes on to commit a crime. A recent example of this principle can be found in '' R v Kingston'', where an individual, after having his drinks spiked by his co-defendant, committed indecent assault on a boy aged 15. It was found that the defendant had merely given way to his paedophilic intentions, and not lacked a mens rea to commit the acts altogether: the fact he was involuntarily intoxicated went only to mitigate sentencing.Ormerod, p. 275

Notes

References