Intoxication Flashcards
when is the defence of intoxication a complete defence?
The defence of intoxication may lead to a complete defence to a criminal charge where the crime can only be committed intentionally
why is intoxication a defence?
Intoxication exists as a defence because it can render a person incapable of forming subjective mens rea. If the required mens rea is objective recklessness, criminal negligence, negligence or where there is no mens rea requirement, the defence of intoxication has no effect on criminal liability.
If intoxication is to succeed as a defence what are the two questions that must be answered in the negative?
- Did the accused know what he was doing?
* If he did, did he know the consequences or probable consequences of his actions?
what was held in the case of (DPP) v. O’Reilly.
Because the accused is so intoxicated that he is incapable of forming a mens rea of a subjective variety. Whereas, if the crime can be committed recklessly, intoxication is no defence as the act of becoming so intoxicated so as to cast off reason and conscience is reckless in itself:
what is the rationale for the distinction between crimes of specific and basic intent as explained in DPP v. Majewski
A man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off the restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any injury he may do while in that condition. His course of conduct in reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition in my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent
what does intoxication mean?
For the purposes of the criminal law, intoxication means intoxication by any dangerous drug including alcohol. For intoxication to impact on a person’s criminal liability it must have been so severe that as to have rendered the accused automaton. Thus, mere Saturday night drunkenness the lowers inhibitions is irrelevant as far as the criminal liability is concerned.
what are the facts of the people (AG) v Manning
● The accused had killed the deceased after consuming 8 pints.
● The judge said to the jury that the effect of drink has to go so far as either to render him incapable of knowing what he is doing at all or if he appreciated that, of knowing the consequences or probable consequences of his actions.
● Only intoxication that rendered the accused an automaton would have satisfied the test.
● The court said that were self-induced intoxication raised successfully as a defence to a charge of murder, it would operate to reduce the homicide to manslaughter even if it has rendered the accused incapable of knowing what he was doing at all.
what was held in the case of DPP v Beard?
● Self-induced intoxication is a defence to a crime of specific intent, if due to the intoxication, the accused had not, in fact, formed the requisite intention.
● The court went on to say that self-induced intoxication is raised successfully as a defence to a charge of murder, it operates only to reduce the homicide to manslaughter.
effect of raising intoxication as a defence
- If self-induced intoxication is raised successfully as a defence to a charge or murder, it operates to reduce the homicide to manslaughter, unless the accused got himself intoxicated for the purpose of giving himself Dutch courage to kill or seriously injure, in which case he is guilty of murder.
- If self-induced intoxication is raised successfully as a defence to a crime of specific intent (other than murder), if entitles the accused to an acquittal, unless the accused hot himself intoxication for the purpose of giving himself Dutch courage to commit the crime.
- Self-induced intoxication is not a defence to a crime of basis intent (if mere recklessness is required on your part to prove the offence then sorry intoxication is no use to you). If innocent intoxication is raised successfully raised as a defence (to any crime (specific intent or basic intent)), it entitles the accused to an acquittal.
