6. Defences Involving State of Mind - Intoxication Flashcards
There is a general rule that intoxication may be a defence to the commision of an offence in certain situations. What are these situations?
Must Know
The general rule
has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:
* where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring s23 (Insanity) of the Crimes Act 1961 into effect
* if intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead a lack of intent to commit the offence
* where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal).
In cases of intoxication the crown must prove intent. What does this mean in practice?
It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty.
Whether it be a general or particular intent the burden is the same: the Crown must prove the intent required by the crime alleged.
In what siutations are defences of intoxication and automatism disqualified?
Evidence that a person formed an intent to commit a crime and then took drink or drugs as part of the method of committing the crime (gaining Dutch courage)
When might intoxication be a defense?
intoxication caused by alcohol or drugs may be a defence to all charges where their effect raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the offender had formed the requisite intent for the offence.
Why is intoxication unlikely to succeed with regards to strict liability offences?
The defence of intoxication is unlikely to be very successful because the intent element
required by the offence is so simple or basic that the person is not able to establish they had no intent to commit the offence.
Provide two examples of offences that are unlikely to succeed?
Must Know
- Apply force to another person (assault), and
- Fight with a person in a public place (fighting in a public place).
