General Defences: Intoxication

Question 1

Intoxication will only work as a ‘defence’ when…

Answer 1

It negates D’s mens rea

Question 2

What are the two types of intoxication?

Answer 2

Voluntary and involuntary

Question 3

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 3

Where D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance

Question 4

Give an example of substances D may take to become voluntarily intoxicated

Answer 4

Alcohol and illegal drugs

Question 5

What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 5

Where D is not aware that he is taking an intoxicating substance

Question 6

Give an example of when D may not be aware that he is taking an intoxicating substance

Answer 6

If his drink was spiked or if he was experiencing unusual effects of a prescribed drug

Question 7

What are the two types of crime?

Answer 7

Specific intent and basic intent

Question 8

What does a specific intent offence require?

Answer 8

Intention

Question 9

What MR will suffice for a basic intent offence?

Answer 9

Recklessness

Question 10

Under what circumstances can voluntary intoxication negate D’s MR?

Answer 10

If the intoxication has prevented him from forming the required mens rea

Question 11

Which case outlines voluntary intoxication (LSD) and a specific intent offence (murder)?

Answer 11

Lipman

Question 12

What legal principle came out of Lipman?

Answer 12

D will not be convicted of a specific intent offence if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea of the offence

Question 13

What legal principle came out Gallagher?

Answer 13

If the defendant has the required MR of the specific intent offence then he will still be guilty (ie drunken intent is still intent)

Question 14

Which case outlines voluntary intoxication with a basic intent offence?

Answer 14

Majewski

Question 15

What is the Majewski rule?

Answer 15

Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated and this can be transferred to satisfy the MR of the crimes

Question 16

What is the key issue with involuntary intoxication and specific intent offences?

Answer 16

Whether D had the MR of the specific intent offence at the time of committing the offence

Question 17

What legal principle came out of the case of Kingston?

Answer 17

If D has the MR of the specific intent offence (despite his intoxication), he will be guilty (ie drugged intent is still intent)

Question 18

What legal principle came out of Allen?

Answer 18

To be regarded as involuntary intoxication, the intoxication has to be completely involuntary (If D knows he is taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of its strength, this is still voluntary intoxication)

Question 19

Which case is used for involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 19

Hardie

Question 20

What legal principle came out of the case of Hardie?

Answer 20

When D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated and if he has not been reckless in the offence either, he will not have the MR and will be found not guilty