Defences (Intoxication) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is Intoxication in legal terms?

A

A factor which affects the D’s ability to form the Men’s Rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is voluntary intoxication?

A

The D chooses to become intoxicated

Alcohol

Drugs

Solvents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What can voluntary intoxication be broken up into?

A

Specific intent crimes

Requires intention to commit one part of the Actus Reus of the crime (murder)

Basic internet crimes

Recklessness is sufficient whether that be ABH or Assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Do basic internet crimes allow for the D to obtain a defence?

(Case law)

A

No defence

DPP V Majewski 1977

D voluntarily consumed a large amount of amphetamines, tranquillisers and alcohol.

He got involved in a pub fight and head-butted the landlord, punched a customer, and kicked a police office

His evidence was that “He did not know what he was doing”

(Raised lack of “Men’s Rea”)

Lord Elwyn Jones’s stated:

“His course of conduct in reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition… supplies the evidence of men’s Rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent”

“It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary men’s rea in assault cases”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Do basic internet crimes allow for the D to obtain a defence?

(Case Law No.2)

R V LipMan (1970)

A

The defendant and girlfriend both took LSD.

The defendant experienced hallucinations

He thought he was descending to the centre of the earth and wrestling servants.

His girlfriend was found dead with eight centimetres of bedsheets stuffed in her mouth

HELD:

D’s Voluntary intoxication by taking drugs was reckless

Sufficient men’s Rea for unlawful act manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

To summarise Basic Intent crimes

A

No defence

Defendant is reckless to become intoxicated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Voluntary intoxication

Specific intent crimes

A

D too intoxicated to from intention: (R V Pordage 1975)

Liability is reduced to basic intent equivalent of the crime which he is charged

Example

Offence: Murder

Defence: Intoxication

Reduced to: Manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Voluntary intoxication

Specific intent crimes

Burden of proof to establish necessary men’s Rea is on?

A

The prosecution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Voluntary intoxication

Specific intent crimes

R V Sheehan & Moore (1975)

A

D’s had been drinking.

They set fire to V’s house, but he escaped

The first D poured petrol on the V and set him alight, killing him

The first D argued at trial that he was substantially affected by the drink and had no recollection of the events, and so lack the men’s Rea for murder

HELD:

He was not able to form men’s Rea for murder.

His conviction was quashed and replaced with a conviction for manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Voluntary intoxication

Specific intent crimes

A-G For NI V Gallagher (1963)

A

D was a psychopath who’s aggressive outbursts were worsened by drink.

On his release from a mental hospital, he brought a knife, intending to kill his wife with it, and a bottle of whiskey.

He knew the whiskey would make him violent to a fatal degree.

He attacked her with a knife and hammer and killed her.

Held:

D was guilty for murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Voluntary intoxication

Specific intent crimes

A-G For NI V Gallagher (1963)

Lord Denning’s statement:

A

“A psychopath who goes out intending to kill, knowing it is wrong and does kill, cannot escape the consequences by making himself drunk before doing it”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Specific intent crimes summarised

A

Intention required

D too intoxicated to form intention: Liability reduced to basic intent equivalent of the crime

D has men’s Rea before becoming intoxicated = No defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Involuntary intoxication?

(Hint: don’t think of the meaning, think of acquittal)

A

The D must be acquitted

As long as the D does not have the men’s Rea first

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Involuntary intoxication?

R V Hardie (1985)

A

The D was going through a breakup with his partner

D took several Valium pills to calm his nerves

He set fire to the flat in which he and his partner lived.

He could remember nothing about it afterwards

D was convicted of aggravated criminal damage and appealed

Held:

His intoxication should be regarded as involuntary, because the effect of the drug, which was a sedative, was unexpected.

D’s conviction was quashed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Involuntary intoxication?

R V Kingston (1994)

A

D had abusive tendencies.

His drink was laced with a sedative.

After this he abused the V.

Held:

He was guilty of the offence.

A drugged intention was still an intention; he knew what he was going

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Involuntary intoxication summarised

A

D must be acquitted unless;

They have the men’s Rea first