Intoxication

Question 1

what is intoxication

Answer 1

D is under the influence of an intoxicating substance i.e drugs or alcohol,

relevant to the MR or an offence

Question 2

rules on voluntary intoxication

Answer 2

Specific intent - can negate MR // DPP v Beard
Drunken intent (dutch courage) still intent // Gallagher 
Basic intent - not a defence // Majewski 
mental disorder due to previous intox - defence // R v Harris

Question 3

VOL INTOX - Specific intent

Answer 3

can negate MR - DPP v Beard

Question 4

VOL INTOX - Drunken intent

Answer 4

Dutch courage not a defence - Gallagher

Question 5

VOL INTOX - Basic intent

Answer 5

not a defence as drinking is reckless conduct - Majewski

Question 6

VOL INTOX mental disorder due to previous intox

Answer 6

can be a defence - R v Harris

Question 7

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 7

• unaware they consumed an intoxicating substance

did they have the MR regardless - if so, no defence
if it caused them to not have the MR, defence

Kingston

Question 8

Kingston

Answer 8

spiked - had sexual contact with unconscious boy, with intent anyways so no defence

Question 9

Rules on intoxicated mistake

Answer 9

DEPENDS ON MISTAKE

• about something causing them not to have the MR > defence for specific intent NOT BASIC (R v Lipman)
• mistake about something else i.e level of force, also no defence (R v Hatton)
• mistaken belief they’d consent to damage is a defence (Jaggard v Dickinson)

Question 10

INOX MISTAKE - didn’t have MR

Answer 10

if it caused them not to have the needed MR only a defence for Specific intent not basic intent crimes

R v Lipman

Question 11

INTOX MISTAKE - something else

Answer 11

mistaken about something else I.e degree of force used
NO DEFENCE
R v Hatton

Question 12

INTOX MISTAKE - criminal damage

Answer 12

s5 CDA 1971

Mistaken belief that they would’ve consented to the damage is a defence

Jaggard v Dickinson