2020- Intoxication Flashcards
when is intoxication a defence
when someone is unable to form mens rea through through alcohol or drug use.
when is voluntary intoxication a defence
a defence for specific intent crimes if mens rea due to alcohol or drugs
no defence to basic intent offences
when is involuntary intoxication a defence
a defence to all charges if D failed to form mens rea
r v groark
d must provide evidence of intoxication
DPP v Beard
drunkeness is taken into account for specific intent crimes
Bratty
drunk man was so drunk he had a defence to murder
what are specific intent crimes
Murder Wounding or causing GBH with intent Theft Robbery Burglary Criminal Damage/Arson with intent Attempts
what does voluntary intoxication do to specific intent crimes
gives an alternative verdict eg making murder, manslaughter
does drunken intent still show intent
yes- R v Sheehan, R v Heard
r v coley
drinking alongside intent does not equal the defence of intoxication
r v walsh
only drinking a small amount means it can’t be used
what does dutch courage mean and where does it stand in law
when someone drinks in order to give them courage in this case a crime. in this case intoxication can’t be used for specific intent
what is the rule of basic intent
not used as a defence because no specific intent is needed already- R v Lipman
R v Caldwell
shows that self induced intoxication is no defence to a crime in which recklessness is enough to form the mens rea.
R v Fortheringham
for rape it was held that self induced intoxication is not a defence regardless whether the issue is consent, intention or identity of victim
what are some basic intent offences
Manslaughter Wounding or inflicting GBH ABH Assault battery rape/sexual assault
DPP v Majewski
there is no defence to basic intent crimes because the courts want to protect the public
what counts as involuntary intoxication
Spiked drinks
adverse reaction to perscription drugs
unexpected recation to sedative drugs
intoxication under duress
spiked drinks cases
R v Eatch (1980); R v Kingston (1994)
adverse reaction to medication cases
R v Bailey (1983)
unexpected reaction to sedative drugs cases
R v Hardie (1984)
R v Kingston
still guilty of serious sex offence as for all it was involuntary intoxication he still had some elements of mens rea present
R v Allen
not being aware of a drinks strength is not involuntary intoxication
