Criminal Law - Intoxication

A video lecture on intoxication for law students studying criminal law on the LLB or GDL.
Intoxication comes down to three key questions:
1) Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
2) If voluntary was it a crime of specific or basic intent?
3) Is the drug one that is known to cause people to become aggressive?
The key principle underlining all of this is that intoxication is not a defence as such but more of a denial of mens rea for an offence.
The onus of proof for proving mens rea lies with the Crown as per Sheehan [1975].
Involuntary intoxication is narrowly defined as per Allen [1988]. The most famous case for involuntary intoxication is Kingston [1994] which notes that a lack of mens rea is still required. Meanwhile the question for offences involving negligence is would the reasonable person have acted in the same way having suffered involuntary intoxication?
Voluntary intoxication requires a distinction between crimes of specific and basic intent with D being not guilty if he did not form the mens rea for a crime of specific intent.
The definition of a crime of specific intent has been hotly debated over the years in cases such as Majewski [1973] (ulterior intent/when the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus) and Heard [2007] (purposive intent) but the best approach is to look at a range of examples:
Specific intent: murder, grievous bodily harm (GBH), theft, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods, criminal damage with intent.
Basic intent: rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, assault and criminal damage through recklessness.
When looking at the actual substance causing intoxication we first ask is it common knowledge that using the drug is liable to make the user become aggressive?
If not then the test is one of recklessness as per Griffiths LJ in Bailey [1983].
Intoxication is not relevant when there are statutory defences as in Jaggard v Dickinson [1981].
Generally a mistake arising from voluntary intoxication cannot be relied on as per O'Grady [1987] and Hatton [2005].
Dutch courage is also no defence as per A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963].

[@Jameswestcharles]

Thanks for everything Marcus! You are the best

[@sammorgan1456]

This was fantastic for expanding slightly beyond the A level syllabus which is a bit too narrow, thank you so much!

[@strictlyanonymous2220]

Thanks again for you breaking these subjects down again. I look forward to more of your videos.

[@sophiemarie4241]

Thanks for the video, it proved very helpful!

[@jazzyjane5813]

Love your criminal law stuff !

[@garrettgonzales7614]

This helped me on finding the exact rule on a case brief. People v keeling 1957

[@EleanorLunn]

Thank you for this!

[@zacariamohameddumbuya7815]

This is fantastic 🙏 Thanks so much for that.

[@aislingor5899]

Tank you so much!. Really helped simplify Specific and Basic intent

[@marcuscleaver]

Thanks Aisling, glad it was useful!

[@mercycoker1261]

You Legend! Thanks a lot!

[@evabasiani1023]

Not too clear on the distinction between basic and specific intent crimes precipitating from intoxication , as regards to a defence being applicable. Could you elaborate pls.?

[@nipabegum1241]

Thank you dear.

[@marcuscleaver]

More than welcome (:

[@nipabegum1241]

+marcuscleaver you are cutr

[@tomford5416]

( i get blocked alot )