General Defences - Intoxication P1 Flashcards
How is the defence of intoxication used
Did intoxication stop the Mr from forming for the required crime
How does intoxication work for specific intent crimes
If someone is intoxicated which stops them from forming the intention MR then the charges will be dropped to the next basic intent crime (so then they can be charged under recklessness)
Crimes such as theft and Robbery do not have a basic intent equivalent therefore all charges will be dropped for this crime
Self-induced intoxication can only be raised as a defence to specific intent crimes
Which case showed that drunken intent is still intent for a specific intent crime
Sheehan & Moore
Which case showed that self-induced intoxication is not a defence for basic intent crimes
DPP v Majewski
Which case showed that D who voluntary intoxicates himself to give himself dutch courage to committ a crime is unable to rely on the defence
A-G of NI
Which case shows voluntary intoxication caused Ds case to fail (snakes)
Lipman
What is involuntary intoxication
When D is unaware that his drink has been spiked
How does involuntary intoxication work as a defence
It can be a defence to both specific and basic intent crimes
It has to be to the extent that D is incapable of forming any MR - if D had MR then still liable
Which case showed that once intent was established then intoxication will not be a defence and involved a TP drugging both V and D
Kingston
Which case involved D taking Valium tables but his reaction was unexpected = involuntary intoxication
Hardie
Which case involved home made wine being stronger than what D though
Allen
In cases where intoxication and insanity is present, which rules do the court follow
M’Naughten rules (insanity)
In cases where intoxication and automatism is present, which rules do the court follow
May be classed as self-induced and therefore D will be deemed reckless and still guilty
