Defence - Intoxication

Question 1

Is intoxication a defence? What do you use it for?

Answer 1

Not a defence but you use evidence of intoxication to show that D lacks MR of the relevant offence.

Question 2

Is drunken intent still intent? What is the authority?

Answer 2

Sheehan (1975) - yes, drunken intent is still intent.

Question 3

Is the intoxication presumed to be voluntary unless evidence to contrary is produced?

Answer 3

Yes

Question 4

Which case established that voluntary intoxication entitles D to be acquitted of a specific-intent crime but not basic-intent crimes? What was the charge in the case?

Answer 4

Majewski (1977) convicted of s.47 as basic-intent crime.

Question 5

What is a specific intent crime?

Answer 5

One that requires proof of intention

Question 6

What is a crime of basic intent?

Answer 6

Ones that only require proof of recklessness

Question 7

Are murder and s.18 GBH crimes of specific or basic intent?

Answer 7

Specific - must have intention to kill/cause GBH

Question 8

Are manslaughter, s.20 GBH or wounding, rape, s.47 assault occasioning ABH, common assault and sexual assault specific or basic intent crimes?

Answer 8

Basic intent - recklessness will suffice

Question 9

Are offences of battery and any attempts specific or basic intent crimes?

Answer 9

Specific - requires intent to inflict unlawful force, intent to commit the offence

Question 10

If you successfully establish a lack of MR due to voluntary intoxication what is the effect?

Answer 10

Cannot be convicted of specific intent crime but would be convicted of lesser basic intent crime e.g. Murder to manslaughter

Question 11

If you use ‘Dutch courage’ to commit an offence can you rely on intoxication for lack of MR? What is the authority?

Answer 11

Gallagher (1963) - no

Question 12

If you are involuntary intoxicated does it matter what crime you can be acquitted of?

Answer 12

No, you can be acquitted of any crime.

Question 13

Which case established that for involuntary intoxication you must still demonstrate that you lack the MR of the offence? What were the brief facts?

Answer 13

Kingston [1995]

Drugged but had paedophilic tendencies so still intention to touch the boy.

Question 14

Which case established that intoxication is not classed as involuntary where D misjudged the strength of the alcohol or illegal drugs consumed? What was the substance in the case?

Answer 14

Allen [1988]

Home made wine.

Question 15

Which case established that where D’s alcoholic drink is laced with much stronger drug that D is not aware of, this constitutes involuntary intoxication?

Answer 15

Eatch (1980)

Question 16

Which case established that where D consumes a legal substance not generally know for producing the side-effects and subsequently becomes intoxicated, D may rely on involuntary intoxication unless he foresaw the risk at the time he took it? What did it concern the consumption of?

Answer 16

Hardie [1983]

Someone else’s Valium

Question 17

Which case held that where D acts recklessly in bringing about an intoxicated side-effect of medication or worsening of that effect then may be regarded in voluntary?

Answer 17

Quick