Intoxication

Question 1

DPP v Beard (1920)

Answer 1

The D was intoxicated he couldn’t form the specific intent for murder then he couldn’t be guilty for murder, but he could of the basic intent alternative instead

Question 2

Lipman (1970)

Answer 2

The Ds intoxication could be used as a defence to the specific intent crime of murder as he was so intoxicated he couldn’t form mens rea, but he was guilty of the basic intent alternative instead

Question 3

A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)

Answer 3

The Ds conviction was upheld and the HofL stated that drunken intent is still intent in law

Question 4

DPP v Majweski (1977)

Answer 4

The Ds conviction was upheld as intoxication is not a defence to basic intent crimes as the D was reckless in becoming intoxicated and this is enough to satisfy the recklessness element of the mens rea

Question 5

R v Pearson (1835)

Answer 5

“if a party be made drunk by stratagem, or the fraud of another, he is not responsible”

Question 6

Kingston (1994)

Answer 6

The HofL decided that even though he was intoxicated involuntarily he was guilty as he formed the mens rea and intoxicated intent

Question 7

Hardie (1985)

Answer 7

The Ds conviction was quashed as the Valium had an unexpected effect. Two part test: Was the D reckless in taking the drugs, was the D aware of the likely effect

Question 8

Bailey (1983)

Answer 8

The HofL stated that self-induced automatism caused by a prescribed drug can be involuntary intoxication if the D has no mens rea and wasn’t reckless in taking the drug

Question 9

Allen (1988)

Answer 9

The intoxication was voluntary even though the D didn’t realise the strength of the wine

Question 10

Fotheringham (1988)

Answer 10

The Ds conviction was upheld, rape is a basic intent crime and there is no defence of intoxicated mistake for basic intent crimes

Question 11

Hatton (2005)

Answer 11

The defendant cannot access a defence if he made an intoxicated mistake about the need to use self defence

Question 12

S5 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Answer 12

A defence based on the honest belief that the person to whom the property belonged would have consented to the damage had they known about it, even where the mistake is induced by intoxication

Question 13

Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)

Answer 13

The defendant was able to rely on the defence as there was a genuine belief that the owner would consent