Intoxication Flashcards
1
Q
Who is Philip Lang?
A
- Urinated on a war memorial but did not remember what he had done
- Received a community order
2
Q
What public policies concern alcohol use?
A
- Health concerns (15000)
- Economic cost (£3.5 billion a year on NHS)
- Public service burdens
3
Q
what is significant about drunken MR?
A
- Its still MR
4
Q
Beard 1920
A
- Capacity was the issue so defence was only available if D was incapable of forming an MR
- Has now been overruled as intent is now the relevant issue to consider
5
Q
Soolkal 1999
A
- No requirement for D to know what they are doing
- Only where D is so effected by drink so he cannot know what he is doing or have foreseen it had he been sober could intoxication be disputed.
6
Q
Kingston 1994
A
- D was a paedophile who had never acted upon desired.
- A person who knew this about him made him commit child sex offences by spiking his drink
- Court rules he formed the intent and therefore he was unsuccessful.
7
Q
Majewski v dpp 1977
A
- Brawl in a pub after D had taken drinks and drugs
- he attacked arresting officers
- kicked the inspector in the cell the next day
- Just were told to ignore the fact of intoxication
- This case created created specific and basic intent
- Appeal unsuccessful as his was basic intent committed recklessly
8
Q
What does specific intent require?
A
- Proof of intent rather than mere recklessness
9
Q
Is there an agreed definition of basic and specific intent?
A
- No
10
Q
Heard 2008
A
- Caldwell standard of specific intent was rejected
- Hughes LJ said ‘specific intent crimes are those that require proof of purposive intention’
- Heard took out penis while drunk and wiped it on a police officer thigh and claimed he couldn’t remember doing it.
- COA said it was basic intent so guilty
11
Q
Lipman 1970
A
- Took LSD (not a hard violence agression drug)
- He thought he was fighting snakes but instead he was cramming bed sheets down a girls throat
- Convicted of manslaughter with basic intent
- Follows same rules as voluntary intoxication
12
Q
Hardie 1985
A
- D appealed conviction for damaging property with intent to endanger life when he took out of date Valium to calm his nerves
- He set fire to a wardrobe
- TJ told jury to ignore intoxication but COA rules drug was a sedative and D was not reckless so conviction was overturned
13
Q
Jaggard v Dickinson 1981
A
- D found not guilty of criminal damage where a voluntary intoxicated mistake was made as to the ownership so the D’s mistake must be viewed subjectively
- He thought the property belonged to a friend
14
Q
Maggee v CPS
A
- She failed to stop at an accident she caused because she was VI and did not realise there even was an accident
- This case restricted the Jaggard principle
15
Q
How narrow is the defence of intoxication and how often is it used?
A
- Very narrow offence
- Used very rarely
