intoxication

Question 1

specific intent definition

Answer 1

(NOT RECKLESSNESS)

- intention needed for the mens rea

Question 2

voluntary intoxication for specific intent

Answer 2

(D has chosen to drink alcohol or drugs)

• D has gotten mens rea (so not that drunk- guilty
• A-G for NI v Gallagher, Lord Denning said defence not available to either specific or basic intent if drink or drugs are taken to fortify courage

-D not for mens rea (completely drunk), not guilty, Sheehan & Moore for theft and robbery and OAPA

SPECIFIC INTENT

Question 3

involuntary intoxication for specific intent

Answer 3

• soft drink is spiked, D takes prescription drugs, calming drug that has opposite unexpected effect
• D had for MR (so not that drunk), guilty- R v Kingston- D had the tendencies, alcohol just decreased the inhibitions

D not got MR (completely ‘out of it’) not guilty, Hardie

SPECIFIC INTENT

Question 4

basic intent definition

Answer 4

mens rea can be intention or recklessness

Question 5

voluntary intoxication for basic intent

Answer 5

D guilty- Majewski (intoxication is reckless)

Question 6

involuntary intoxication for basic intent

Answer 6

D not guilty- Hardie

Question 7

intoxication definition

Answer 7

not really a defence but intoxication may be so extreme D couldn’t form the MR

Question 8

structure

Answer 8

1) was act voluntary or involuntary
2) was it specific intent or basic intent
3) guilty or not with relevant cases

Question 9

becoming voluntary intoxicated is what

Answer 9

recklessness