Intoxication

Question 1

what is intoxication?

Answer 1

does not provide a defense as suchbut is relevant as to whether D has the required mens rea for offence. If D does not have required mens rea then not guilty

Question 2

whether D is guilty or not depends on:

Answer 2

• whether intoxication was voluntary or involuntary

- whether offence is specific intent or basic intent

Question 3

what is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 3

D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance e.g. alcohol, drugs
can also occur when D knows effect of prescribed drug will be intoxication

Question 4

voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences?

Answer 4

voluntary intoxication can negate mens rea for these offences, If D is so intoxicated they have not formed mens rea for the offence, they are not guilty

Question 5

If D is so intoxicated they have not formed mens rea , they are not guilty for specific intent offence, what case established this?

Answer 5

DPP V Beard (1920)

Question 6

case example where Ds were so drunk they didn’t have mens rea for the offence:

Answer 6

R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) (Ds so drunk they threw petrol on tramp and set fire to him) however, guilty of manslaughter (basic intent)

Question 7

where D has necessary mens rea for specific intent despite intoxicated state, they are guilty of offence, drunken intent is still intent, what case shows this?

Answer 7

A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallegher (1963), murdered wife

more recent example; R v Coley (2013) attempted murder on cannabis

Question 8

voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 8

intoxication is not a defense for basic intent offences, voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered reckless course of conduct, recklessness is enough to constitute men’s rea

Question 9

case for ; becoming intoxicated is viewed as a reckless course of conduct, recklessness is enough to constitute men’s rea in basic intent offences

Answer 9

DPP v Majewski

Question 10

What is past intoxication?

Answer 10

Where D is suffering from a mental disorder brought on by past voluntary intoxication, he can use voluntary intoxication as a defence for basic and specific
R v Harris

Question 11

Case for past intoxication:

Answer 11

R v Harris (2013)

Question 12

What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 12

Covers situations where D did not know he or she was taking an intoxicating substance e.g. soft drink has been laced, prescribed drugs have unexpected effect

Question 13

What is the test for the defence of involuntary intoxication

Answer 13

Did D have the necessary mens rea when they committed the offence? If so, like in R v Kingston, they will be guilty.

This is so even though D would not have committed without intoxication lowering their resistance

Question 14

R v Kingston (involuntary intoxication)

Answer 14

If D had formed necessary mens rea for offence then involuntary intoxication is not a defence

Question 15

Involuntary intoxication where D did not have necessary mens rea

Answer 15

Cannot be guilty of specific intent offence,

Neither basic intent offence as D has not been reckless in getting intoxicated. (R v Hardie)

Question 16

What is intoxicated mistake?

Answer 16

If D is mistaken about a key fact because they are intoxicated, then it depends on what the mistake is about as to whether they have a defence.

Question 17

Drunken mistake about something which means D did not have necessary mens rea for the offence:

Answer 17

Specific intent: has a defence

Basic intent: no defence (R v Lipman)

Question 18

what case shows: if drunken mistake is about amount of force needed in self defence, D will not have a defence for basic intent offence?

Answer 18

R v O’Grady,

drunk, V was hitting him, D hit him with a glass ashtray.

Question 19

what case shows: if drunken mistake is about amount of force needed in self defence, D will not have a defence for specific intent offence?

Answer 19

R v Hatton

(Drunk, V was hitting him with stick and D defended himself with a sledgehammer, convicted for murder)

Question 20

what act shows that a mistaken belief caused through D’s voluntary intoxication can’t be used for self defence?

Answer 20

Criminal Justice and immigration Act 2008

D can’t rely on any mistaken belief attributable to voluntary intoxication.

Question 21

what is the exception to rule on intoxicated mistake?

Answer 21

Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)
exception because criminal damage Act 1971 allows honest belief that person whom property belongs to would have consented to the damage, even where mistake is made through intoxication