Capacity Defences - Intoxication

Question 1

R V sheehan and Moore (1975) - important

Answer 1

If D commits a specific intent crime when they are voluntarily intoxicated, the test is whether D did not have the intent for the offence, this Changed the earlier rule from DPP v Beard (1920) that the test was whether d could not form the men’s rea

Question 2

R v Lipman (1970) - important

Answer 2

When intoxication is involved, the CPS can charge D with a specific intent offence as well as a fallback offence of basic intent alternative, D will be charged with both and it is to the jury to decide which can be proved.

Question 3

R v Allen (1988) - important

Answer 3

If D is voluntarily intoxicated, intoxication is not available as a defence for a basic intent offence, as getting intoxicated is reckless.

Question 4

Attorney Generals for Northern Ireland V Gallagher (1963)

Answer 4

If D formed the Mens Rea for a specific intent offence and later becomes intoxicated as ‘dutch courage’ to commit the crime, there is no defence.

Question 5

DPP v Majewski (1977)

Answer 5

If D is voluntarily intoxicated, intoxication is not available as a defence for basic intent crimes, because being drunk was reckless

Question 6

S76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2005)

Answer 6

An intoxicated mistake about the level of force used in self-defence or the prevention of crime is specifically barred from being a defence

Question 7

R v Kingston (1994)

Answer 7

If D is voluntarily intoxicated, D is still liable if they did for them Mens Rea of the offence, even if there is evidence that they would not have done so without the intoxication.