Defences: Intoxication

Question 1

what are the 4 types of defences

Answer 1

-intoxication
-public and private defence
-duress
-necessity

Question 2

when should intoxication be considered

Answer 2

-should be considered with MR

Question 3

give 2 general cases and 1 general rule regarding intoxication

Answer 3

-if D is so intoxicated they cannot form the MR then D cannot be blamed for intoxicated acts
-R v Sheehan and Moore; drunken MR = valid MR, Q is whether D had MR not if he was capable of forming it
-R v Bowden; if at time of offence D knew what they were doing, it is irrelevant that they wouldn’t have done it if they were sober

Question 4

give a case and general rule for involuntary intoxication

Answer 4

-if D is so drunk they cannot form MR then they cannot be blamed for acts when that intoxicated
-R v Kingston; D had pedophilic tendencies, he was drugged and then assaulted young boy

Question 5

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Sheehan and Moore

Answer 5

-drunken MR = valid MR
-Q is whether D had MR not if he was capable of forming it

Question 6

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Bowden

Answer 6

-if at time of offence D knew what they were doing, it is irrelevant that they wouldn’t have done it if they were sober

Question 7

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Kingston

Answer 7

-D had pedophilic tendencies
-D was drugged and then assaulted young boy
-still convicted

Question 8

give 6 cases/ legal principles relating to voluntar

Answer 8

-R v Allen; strength of alcohol no excuse, only matters if D was unaware drink was alcoholic
-R v Hardie; applies to legal substances, risks werent appreciated
-DPP v Majewski; cannot rely on intoxication if crime has basic intent, held here to mean MR=intent AND recklessness
-DPP v Beard; can rely on intoxication for crimes of specific intent
-R v Heard; cannot rely on intox for basic intent crimes, held here to mean no ulterior MR element
-AG of Northern Ireland v Gallagher; deliberate intoxication for dutch courage to commit an offence negates defence

Question 9

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Allen

Answer 9

-not knowingstrength of alcohol no excuse
-only matters if D was unaware drink was alcoholic
-D didnt know strength of home brewed wine

Question 10

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Hardie

Answer 10

• applies to legal substances
  -D took valium tablets that had adverse affects on him
  -set fire to wardrobe
  -risks/ adverse affects couldnt be appreciated

Question 11

what happened/ is the legal principle in DPP v Majewski

Answer 11

-cannot rely on intoxication if crime of basic intent
-held basic intent crimes mean the MR=intent AND recklessness unlike specific intent crimes where MR= just intent

Question 12

what happened/ is the legal principle in DPP v Beard

Answer 12

-can rely on intoxication for crimes of specific intent

Question 13

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Heard

Answer 13

• cannot rely on intox for basic intent crimes
  -held basic intent means crimes with no requirement for ulterior intent element in MR
  -specific crimes are crimes that do require an ulterior intent in MR

Question 14

what happened/ is the legal principle in AG of Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 14

-deliberate intoxication for dutch courage to commit an offence negates defence

Question 15

give examples of basic and specific intent crimes based on the Majewski distinction

Answer 15

-specific intent (MR requires just intent); murder and s.18 GBH
-basic intent (MR requires intent OR recklessness); manslaughter, s.20 GBH

Question 16

give examples of basic and specific intent crimes based on the Heard distinction

Answer 16

-specific intent (MR requires ulterior intent); murder, s.18 GBH and theft)
-basic intent (MR that doesnt require ulterior intent); manslaughter, s.20 GBH, assault, battery, s.47 ABH, rape, manslaughter, criminal damage/arson