Intoxicated Mistakes about the Need for Self‐Defence
| Published date | 01 January 2007 |
| Date | 01 January 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00628_1.x |
tion to those portrayed in abusive images of children, and the second is that even
after seven year s it has not been brought into force.
Until the decision in Godwin and Gazette are revisited and the 1999 Act tigh-
tened it is di⁄cult to argue with the conclusion of Kay LJthat child protection is
not being enhanced by the law in this area.
Intoxicated Mistakes about the Need for Self-Defence
Gavin Dingwall
1
It is popularly assumed thatthe consumption of alcohol and other intoxicants can
a¡ect people in a number of ways. Research has consistently shown that a high
proportion of o¡enders have drunk alcohol prior to o¡end ing,
2
but, equally, it is
apparent that ¢nding a direct cau sal lin k is highly problematic.
3
One way in
which it has been argued that intoxication may increase an individual’s likelihood
of o¡ending is that it may impair his ability to reason with the result that an
intoxicated individual may be more likely to misread a situation.
4
This paper is
concerned with one way in which this might occur, namely the ability of an
intoxicated person to assess the danger of a situation.The criminal law has had
to respond to a number of cases where an intoxicated individual attacked some-
one (and often killed him) in the allegedly mistaken belief that the victim was
about to attack him. Recently, the Court of Appeal has considered the issue
again in RvHatton.
5
Believing that they were bound by the earlier decision in
1 Readerin Law,De Montfort University. Some of the research for this paper was completed whilst I
was aVisiting Scholarat Flinders University of South Australia.An earlier version of this paper was
presented as a sta¡ research seminar at the School of Law, University of Wales, Swansea. I would
like to than k my colleagues Alisdair A. Gillespie and Michael Hirst and an anonymous reviewer
for their comments and assistance with this paper. Anyerrors remain my responsibility.
2 See generally G. Dingwall, Alcoholand Crime (Cul lompten:Willan,20 06) chapter2. T.Budd, Alco-
hol-RelatedAssault: ¢ndingsfrom theBritish Crime Survey (London: Home O⁄ce,2003) states that the
o¡ender was judged to be‘under the in£uence of drink’ in 40% of reported incidents of violence.
See further M. Maguireand H. Nettleton, ReducingAlcohol-RelatedViolenceand Disorder:a n evaluation
of the ‘TASC’project (London: Home O⁄ce,20 03).
3 See H. Parker,‘Young Adult O¡enders, Alcohol and Criminological Cul-De-Sacs’ (1996) 36(2)
BJCrim 282; K.Pernanen and S. Brouchu, AttributableFractionsforAlcoholand OtherDrugs in Relation
to Crimesin Canada: literature searchand outlines of databanks (Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse,1997); J. Rumgay, Crime, Punishment and the Drinking O¡ender (Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac-
millan,1998) 13.
4 See P. N. S. Hoaken, P. Gia ncolaand R. O. Pihl,‘Executive Cognitive Functions as Mediators of
Alcohol-InducedAggression’ (1998) 59 Journalof Studieson Alcohol 599;T.A. Ito, N.Miller and V. E.
Pollock,‘Alcohol and Aggression: a meta-analysis on the moderating e¡ects of i nhibitory cues,
triggering events,and self-focused attention’ (1996) 120 Psychological Bulletin 60.
5 [20 05] EWCA C rim 2951.
Gavin Dingwall
127
r2007 The Authors.Journal Compilation r2007 The Modern Law ReviewLimited.
(2007) 70(1)MLR 114^138
To continue reading
Request your trial