Intoxication Flashcards
Is intoxication a defence?
Intoxication is not a formal defence but and evidentiary one.
What is meant by an evidentiary defence of intoxication?
An evidentiary defence of intoxication is evidence regarding the accused state of mind that is submitted to the jury.
The defence submits this evidence to case doubt on purported mens rea of the accused.
What is the NZ benchmark case for evidentiary defences of intoxication?
R v Kamipeli sets out the relevant principles for this defence
What are the principles of R v Kamipeli?
Intoxication is not a formal defence, but an evidentiary one.
The issue is not whether or not the accused could have formed the requisite mens rea but whether or not he/she possessed it in fact.
Thus evidence of intoxication, alongside other evidence, is provided by the defence to the Jury for them to infer the accused state of mind.
Only for subjective elements.
Where does intoxication stand with regards to objective standards?
Intoxicated states of mind and their effect on mens rea are inferred by the jury, it is a subjective mechanism.
The objective standard, the reasonable person, is never drunk and always sober therefore intoxication is irrelevant
What is the English position on intoxication?
The English position is outlined in DPP v Majewski;
Voluntary intoxication can be used as evidence for mens rea for specific intent crimes, crimes that (in theory) require a high level of abstration.
It will not protect against basic intent cimres?
What is the basis for the specific-basic distinction in English law?
It is vague.
How will intoxication be applied in cases where mens rea is not specified?
The basic rule in cases where mens rea is not speificed is that it will be presumed to the standard of intent/recklessness.
Intoxication can still be submitted as evidence for the jury to infer mens reas.
What is the underlying principle for the evidentiary defence of intoxication encapsulated in Kamipeli/Sheehan (NZ) and O’Connor (AUS)
The underlying principles encapsulated in the NZ and Australian cases is that the intoxicated state of mind is not criminally liable but whether or not that state of mind had base criminal intentions.
Thus intoxication, as evidence, can speak to the nature of that mind. It is not whether or not they can form mens rea but whether or not they had it.
Where does alcoholic blackout/amnesia stand with regards to mens rea?
Not remembering because one is too drunk does not mean they did not possess the intent at the time they were drunk.
