Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him.
Held: Involuntary intoxication is no defence if the defendant otherwise had the necessary criminal intent. To accept such a defence would be to allow the creation of a new defence as to which: ‘the recognition of a new general defence at common law has not happened in modern times. Nevertheless, the criminal law must not stand still, and if it is both practical and just to take this step, and if judicial decision rather than legislation is the proper medium, then the courts should not be deterred simply by the novelty of it.’ Nevertheless there were msany practical difficluties making it inappropriate for the House to do this.
Lord Mustill said: ‘Each offence consists of a prohibited act or omission coupled with whatever state of mind is called for by the statute or rule of the common law which creates the offence. In those offences which are not absolute the state of mind which the prosecution must prove to have underlain the act or omission – the ‘mental element’ – will in the majority of cases be such as to attract disapproval. The mental element will then be the mark of what may properly be called a ‘guilty mind’. ‘
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley
Times 22-Jul-1994, Independent 22-Jul-1994, [1994] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 AC 355, [1994] 3 All ER 353, [1994] 3 WLR 519
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Kingston CACD 10-May-1993
The defendant and a co-accused had sexually assaulted a boy. He appealed saying that the co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Involuntary intoxication can be a sufficient defence to a criminal . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Yip Chiu Cheung v Regina PC 16-Jun-1994
The appellant was charged with conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, contrary to the common law and section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Cap 134 of Hong Kong. The prosecution said he had had meetings in Thailand with a man named Needham. . .
No longer good law – Rex v Pearson 1835
The prisoner was indicted for the murder of his wife. It was proved, that, in a fit of drunkenness, he had beaten her in a cruel manner with a rake-shank, and that she died of the wounds and bruises which she received. His only defence was that he . .
Cited – Ross v HM Advocate HCJ 12-Jul-1991
The defendant faced charges of attempted murder, malicious damage and aggravated assault. He had been drinking lager beer from a can. Unknown to him, someone else put temazepam and LSD in the drink. He began to scream and to lunge about him with a . .
Cited – Daniel M’Naghten’s Case HL 1843
Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a mental disorder under which he believed that he was being persecuted by various bodies in authority, including the Tory Party. He sought to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, but shot and killed instead . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard HL 1920
The accused raped a girl aged thirteen whilst he was drunk. He placed his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming, but without any intention of injuring her. He caused her death by suffocation, and was convicted of murder. It was argued on his . .
Cited – Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher HL 1961
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
Cited – Cardle v Mulrainey HCJ 1992
The defendant drank lager into which a third party had put amphetamine. He then tried to start vehicles belonging to others with the intention of taking them away. He also took some property from one of the vehicles. The sheriff acquitted him. The . .
Cited – The Queen v O’Connor 20-Jun-1980
(High Court of Australia) Criminal Law – Intention – Voluntary intoxication – Unlawfully wounding
Mason J considered the defence of intoxication to a criminal charge and held that: ‘the view is taken that the act charged is voluntary . .
Cited – HM Advocate v Cunningham 1963
. .
Cited – Regina v Sheehan and Moore CACD 1975
The court approved a direction of law to the jury who had been asked to conclude that the voluntary consumption of alcohol by the defendant should lead to the conclusion that he was too drunk to form the intention required for proof of the crime . .
Cited – The Queen v King 1962
[Supreme Court of Canada] Without appreciating the risk, the defendant drove a car whilst suffering from the after-effects of a medicinal drug which induced a state in which he might suddenly be unable to know what he was doing.
Held: His . .
Cited – Regina v Mandair HL 20-May-1994
The House of Lords may itself determine the grounds of an appeal, and deal with matters undetermined by Court of Appeal. A verdict of ‘causing GBH’ (not inflicting) was not an offence unknown to law. A verdict of ‘causing GBH contrary to s20’ was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.87081
