Intoxication
Not Generally a Defence
Intoxication is not generally a defence in criminal proceedings. In principle, intoxication may be relevant to whether a person has the requisite guilty mind, which is an element of many of the more serious crimes which usually require intention or recklessness. However, the courts lean strongly against the argument that intoxication may be a defence and may negate a mens rea “guilty mind”, as it is almost always self-inflicted.
The modern position is that where an offence requires intention, it is possible in principle that intoxication may negate the intention. Offences based on recklessness or negligence may not be excused on the basis of intoxication.
The principles applicable to intoxication apply to both alcohol and drugs. Intoxication should be distinguished from drunkenness. Drunkenness is not a defence and may be an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Negating a Specific Intent
Intoxication (not mere drunkenness) can negate a specific intent. It cannot negate a basic intent. The distinction made is between specific intent offence where intention to do the act is the basis of the offence and other offences such as manslaughter, assault and rape, et cetera where intent or recklessness is sufficient.
These principles have emerged from a number of UK cases and the distinction is not easily drawn nor are the concepts and the distinction wholly satisfactory.In the context of homicide, intoxication may have the effect of negating the specific intent so that the person is convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. The general principle remains however that the courts lean heavily against permitting intoxication as a defence.
It is well established that if a person forms the specific intent and takes a drink to assist him in the commission of a crime, he has the requisite intent, to be found guilty of the offence requiring specific intent. A difficulty with this approach is that the guilty act and the guilty mind are separated.
Does not Negate Recklessness
Intoxication may exceptionally negate a specific intention but not recklessness. The recklessness itself may lie in taking the intoxicants, may be of itself as sufficient basis for the particular offence. If the taking was involuntary, the recklessness itself may be negated.
The approach that the taking of alcohol or drugs may themselves form the basis of recklessness for the purpose of offences requiring recklessness has been criticised.
Involuntary Intoxication
Most intoxication is voluntary. It arises from the deliberate and conscious taking of alcohol or drugs. Involuntary intoxication may arise exceptionally where the defendant is unaware that he has ingested drugs and/or alcohol. In order to be involuntary, the intoxication must not merely relate to the amount of alcohol or drugs taken or the underestimation of their effect.
Involuntary intoxications may be relevant in terms of the overall intent or recklessness. However, the mere fact that involuntary intoxication caused the defendant / accused to lose inhibitions, does not mean his actions are unintended.