Defences - Intoxication Flashcards
What is relevant as to when a defendant can use intoxication as a ‘defence’?
What is relevant as to when a defendant can use intoxication as a ‘defence’?
It is relevant as to whether or not the defendant had the required mens res for the offence
What does the defence depend on?
- whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
- whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent
Basic intent:
- where the mens rea for a crime is recklessness for negligence or a crime of strict liability
Specific intent:
where the mens rea for a crime is one of intention
What is voluntary intoxication?
D chose to take intoxicating substance, and is awake of the effect a prescribed drug will be to make him intoxicated
How does the intoxication remove the mens rea?
if D is so intoxicated he has not formed mens rea for offence then he is not guilty
R v Lipman
The defendant took LSD with his girlfriend before falling asleep, while sleeping he dreamt that he was being attacked by snakes, when he woke up he had found that he had killed his girlfriend in response to his hallucination
What is a ‘drunken intent’?
where D has necessary mens rea despite his intoxication then he is guilty of the offence
Why is intoxication not available for defendants who commit basic intent offences?
voluntary intoxication is considered a reckless course of conduct
DPP v Majewski
D got very aggressive after taking alcohol and drugs and attacked pub attendees and police was charged with a basic intent crime
Fotherington
A defendant had been out drinking and accidentally began having sex with his 14 y/o baby sitter when he mistook her for his wife.
Why is a defendant not able to rely on intoxication in a mistaken belief for self-defence?
Rape is a basic defence and therefore his drunken mistake couldn’t be relied on
What is involuntary intoxication?
where D was not aware he was taking an intoxicating substance
What is the test for if the defence is available for someone who has been involuntarily intoxicated?
Did D have the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence
R v Kingston
Man was drugged and persuaded to assault a sleeping 14 year old, the man who drugged him photographed the assault in an attempt to use it to blackmail
Why can’t defendants be guilty of basic intent offences if they have been involuntarily intoxicated?
Because he has not been reckless in being intoxicated
R v Hardie
Man took valium which made his behaviour unpredictable and he lit the living room on fire, where his ex girlfriend and daughter died.
Mens rea or recklessness?
the defendant will always become intoxicated before committing the actus reus of a crime
Lesser offences
for crimes such as theft, there is no lesser charge so the defendant would be found not guilty
Unfair application
where the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated, he may still be found guilty for a crime
Public policy
intoxication should not be used by the masses as an excuse for criminal behaviour
Purposeful intoxication?
The law makes no distinction between drunk with the sole purpose of committing a crime and those who merely have a few drinks and inadvertently become intoxicated.
Jury guidance
Jury who are supposed to judge on facts, not on suppositions
