Voluntary Intoxication

1. Provided that Gorge’s failure to act was the imputable cause of Flop’s death, he is guilty of manslaughter. A person charged with an offence of basic intent, like manslaughter, cannot rely on voluntary intoxication as a defence if his act was causative of the death of the victim (DPP v Majewski (1977); Lipman (1970))
2. Offences of basic intent include, in addition to manslaughter: malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Sullivan (1981)); assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Bolton v Crawley (1972)); and rape (Fotheringham (1988)).
3. In Bailey (1988), the Court of Appeal held that self-induced automatism other than that due to intoxication from alcohol or drugs will provide a defence even to crimes of basic intent except where the defendant was ‘reckless’ – in a general subjective sense – as to the risk of becoming an automaton.
4. That is, if the accused knew that by doing or failing to do something (for example, in the case of a diabetic taking too much insulin or not eating after having taken insulin) there was a risk that he might become aggressive, unpredictable or dangerous with the result that he might cause some harm to others, and that he persisted in the action or took no remedial action when he knew it was required, then it would be open to the jury to find that he was reckless and convict of an appropriate crime of basic intent (for example, malicious wounding, inflicting grievous bodily harm or assault occasioning actual bodily harm).
5. In these circumstances, despite the fact that he lacked the mens rea, the defendant may be convicted of an appropriate offence of basic intent.
6. This rule was also applied in Hardie (1988), where the defendant took a quantity of valium, a sedative drug. The valium was not prescribed to the defendant and the judge treated the case as an ordinary one of voluntary intoxication, ruling that, as it was self-induced, it was no defence to a crime of basic intent. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The court held, distinguishing Majewski, that the rule regarding voluntary intoxication does not apply where the drug is not generally recognised as dangerous. That is, if the drug does not normally cause unpredictable behaviour, automatism resulting from its consumption may provide an excuse for all crimes, even those of basic intent. Only if the defendant was reckless in the Bailey sense can he be convicted of an offence (of basic intent).
7. Although automatism will often afford a ‘defence’ entitling the defendant to a complete acquittal, the causes of the condition must be examined. If there is a prior fault on the part of the defendant either because he is voluntarily intoxicated or has ‘recklessly’ failed to take steps to prevent himself falling into a state of automatism then his condition will not excuse a basic intent crime. If he is not responsible for the automatism, but it is the result of an internal condition that is likely to result in recurrent ‘malfunctioning’, the defendant will be classified as legally insane and entitled only to a qualified acquittal.