Defences: Intoxication Flashcards
What questions arise if someone is really intoxicated and commited a crime-
Did the form the MR.
What does intoxication cover?
Alcohol, drugs, and other substances such as solvents.
How is the “defence” based on public policy?
Cannot punish- cannot form MR
However,
Must be balanced with punishing people who commit crimes after becoming intoxicated.
2 ways of identifying intoxication in law?
Voluntary and Involuntary.
Volunatary intoxication?
Chose- take substance- drugs alcohol etc- D know these cause intoxication.
Drugs- must be well known to cause unpredicatability or aggressiveness.
Bailey (1983) and Hardie (1985)- distinguished between dangerous and non dangerous drugs???
Taking- dangerous drugs- V intox.
Taking- Non dangerous drugs- May be V intox- did they know the understand impact of drugs upon them.
IV intox: Define.
D- not aware- taking intoxicating substance- claims- spiked. Substances such as prescription drugs may have unforeseen effects on D.
Involuntary intox- x form MR- not guilty.
Invol intox- Did for MR- may be guilty.
What is never a defence to a basic intent crime?
Volun intox.
If D so intoxicated- incapable form MR- complete defence to specific intent crimes.
If D intoxicated but still has intent to form MR could they be found guilty?
yes- Drunken intent still an intent (R v Sheehan and Moore 1975)
Liquid courage- Defence?
No- Intoxication to form courage- still be found guilty.
The rationale behind basic intent crimes and dissallowing intoxication as a defence is based on?
> Notion- Becoming intoxicated- reckless action.
Sufficient evidence of MR for basic intent. (recklessly commited) crimes such as ABH or Common Assault.
