Involuntary Intoxication
| Author | Thom Brooks |
| Published date | 01 April 2015 |
| Date | 01 April 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018315579133 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Involuntary Intoxication:
A New Six-step Procedure
Thom Brooks
Durham Law School, Durham University, UK
Abstract
Involuntary intoxication is often misunderstood. The predominant ‘orthodox’ view is that
involuntary intoxication should lead to acquittal for offences requiring proof of fault. Strict
liability offences are therefore unaffected. This article argues that the law is more complex,
requiring a more careful approach. The article provides a new six-step procedure to determine
whether involuntary intoxication is applicable and should lead to acquittal.
Keywords
Automatism, duress, intoxication, involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication
Introduction
Involuntary intoxication is often misunderstood. The predominant ‘orthodox’ view is that involuntary
intoxication should lead to acquittal for offences requiring proof of fault. Strict liability offences
are therefore unaffected. This article argues that the law is more complex, requiring a more careful
approach. The article provides a new six-step procedure to determine whether involuntary intoxication
is applicable and should lead to acquittal. Additionally, it recommends consideration of a new seventh
step concerning duress.
The orthodox view of involuntary intoxication is that normally D should be acquitted for offences
requiring proof of fault when involuntarily intoxicated.
1
This is because D would lack the required
mens rea. Involuntary intoxication provides evidence for a complete defence for crimes of specific or
basic intent where D lacks mens rea. For example, David Ormerod argues: ‘The offence has not been
committed and there is absolutely no reason why the law should pretend that it has’.
2
Corresponding author:
Thom Brooks, Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK.
E-mail: thom.brooks@durham.ac.uk
1. D. Ormerod, Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law, 13th edn (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2011) 313. See Pearson’s Case
[1835] 2 Lew 144, 145 (‘If a party be made drunk by stratagem, or the fraud of another, he is not responsible’) and for criticism
of Pearson see Mustill LJ in RvKingston [1995] 2 AC 355 at 367 (‘I cannot place reliance on this dictum as a foundation for
a modern law of involuntary intoxication’ after citing Pearson).
2. Ibid. citing Law Commission, Intoxication and Criminal Liability, Report No. 314 (TSO: London, 2009) [1.22]. See also
Q. Haque and I. Cumming, ‘Intoxication and Legal Defences’ (2003) 9 Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 144–51 at 146.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2015, Vol. 79(2) 138–146
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315579133
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial