Q:With the aid of decided cases *distinguish between Voluntary Intoxication & Involuntary Intoxication*?

Intoxication occurs when an individual is under the influence of drugs (including liquids and alcohol) which distorts their mental capacity. Within the realm of law, there are two types; involuntary and voluntary. The former occurs when the individual does not willingly/unconsciously/unbeknownst to him, takes a drug mentioned above, while the latter is when an individual willingly/consciously/of one’s own free will, takes a drug mentioned above.

Consequently, only the former is applicable as a successful defence.

To continue, the leading cases on the matter are DPP v Beard and AG For Northern Ireland v Gallagher. Other quintessential cases that espoused the above cases include, but are not limited to: R v Lipman, R v Hardie, R V Allen and R V Kingston.

Within public law, the concepts of basic intent and specific intent crimes exist, whereby, a crime of basic intent is one which is menial and done with little to no mens rea such as petty theft, with crimes of specific intent involving a substantial amount of mens rea and are usually more serious including murder and rape. Involuntary intoxication applies to both as a full defence.

Voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence for specific intent crimes:

Subsequently, in DPP v Beard, B was intoxicated while sexually assaulting a child and later killing her with his thumb down her throat. He claimed his drunkenness was an excuse in that he couldn’t have formed the intent to kill, his conviction for murder stood as it was clear he possessed the mens rea beforehand to commit the crimes and only used his drunken state as an excuse. This case sets the precedent in voluntary intoxication as one cannot rely on this defence after knowingly taking the drug and committing the crime.

Again, we have the paradigmatic case of AG For Northern Ireland v Gallagher, which again shows how voluntary intoxication is a futile excuse in such specific intentional crimes. G drank a bottle of alcohol as part of ‘Dutch’s Courage’ before killing his wife, claiming intoxication and he was under the influence and shouldn’t be charged. G had already formed the mens rea to commit the crime and consciously took the drug (alcohol). He could not use his state as a defence as it was voluntarily done.

The expectation to Voluntary intoxication:

On the contrary, R v Hardie axiomatically shows the exception to voluntary intoxication. H took sedatives to calm his nerves but ended up starting a fire, which he was arrested for for being reckless and endangering life and property. The conviction was quashed as H didn’t know a sedative would produce that effect as an ordinary person would expect to go to sleep and remain there as opposed to changing one’s behaviour into one that is erratic as if he took a narcotic such as cocaine. Hence, seeing as this was a substantially special circumstance as a reasonable man would not normally behave as such or expect to, this is one of the few exceptions to voluntary intoxication not being a full defence for specific intent crimes

Involuntary intoxication becomes Voluntary:

R v Allen, a seminal case on involuntary intoxication, shows that though one may be involuntarily intoxicated, once he was not against committing the crime and essentially would want to commit the crime but had not planned to, and does so while unbeknownst to him, he will be treated as though he was voluntarily intoxicated. Here, A drank wine not knowing it was strong, committing sexual offences and claimed he was drunk to the point where he did not know what he was doing. It was held this did not amount to involuntary, but voluntary intoxication as he already intended to commit such a crime, though he didn’t plan to at this particular instance.

Therefore, intoxication is only an applicable defence as ‘involuntary’ and not ‘voluntary’ for crimes of both specific and basic intent. Though, as we see in R v Allen and R v Hardie there are exceptions as with everything.