Capacity Defences - Intoxication Key Questions - Topic 16

Question 1

What does it mean when D must have an absence of MR?

Answer 1

They must not have formed the MR for the crime they committed.

Question 2

Give some examples of when D may be found to be involuntary intoxicated

Answer 2

• spiking
• medical prescription

Question 3

What is the significance of:
R v Kingston

Answer 3

• R v Kingston - intoxicated is still intent.

Question 4

What is the situation with voluntary intoxication?

Answer 4

A defence for specific intent offences only

Question 5

What are specific intent offences?

Answer 5

Crimes that can only be committed with intention.

Question 6

What happened in DPP v Lipman? This is authority for the fact that intoxication may be a partial defence to specific intent offences.

Answer 6

• DPP v Lipman - D and his girlfriend took LSD and whilst hallucinating D killed his girlfriend thinking she was a snake.

Question 7

What are basic intent offences?

Answer 7

Offences which have no smaller offences e.g. assault.

Question 8

What happened in DPP v Majewski and was D able to plead voluntary intoxication?

Answer 8

D had a lot of alcohol and drugs and attacked a landlord. Couldn’t plead involuntary intoxication because he was charged with basic intent offences.

Question 9

What is the burden and standard of proof with the defence of intoxication?

Answer 9

• Burden of proof = D brings the defence forward
• Standard of proof = beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 10

what’s the significance of:
R v Allen

Answer 10

• R v Allen - If the alcohol is stronger than you thought you’re still guilty.

Question 11

what’s the significance of:

R v Bailey

Answer 11

• R v Bailey - Jury should consider whether automatism as a defence to specific intent offences.

Question 12

what’s the significance of:

R v Hardie

Answer 12

• R v Hardie - D wasn’t reckless when he had his wife’s Valium out of date tablets.