Intoxication Flashcards
What does this defence cover?
The defence of intoxication covers intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances, such as glue sniffing.
Intoxication doesn’t provide a defence as such but is relevant as to whether the D has…
the required mens rea for the offence for which they have been accused.
If the D doesn’t have the necessary mens rea for the offence because of their intoxicated state what might they be found?
Not guilty!
Whether the D is guilty or not depends on:
Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary;
Whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent.
What is a specific intent crime?
Specific intent offences are generally those which require specific intention for their mens rea.
Give examples of how someone can be voluntary intoxicated.
The defendant will choose to take an intoxicating substance.
Also occurs where the defendant takes a prescribed drug but knows the effect of the drug will leave them in an intoxicated state.
What can voluntary intoxicated negate? BASICALLY A RECAP. DRILL IT IN!
Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence.
If the defendant is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence, he is not guilty.
Explain DPP v Beard.
The appellant whilst intoxicated raped a 13 year old girl and put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. She died of suffocation. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter as the mens rea for murder could not be established due to the defendant’s intoxicated state.
“If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved.”
Give another case for voluntary intoxication where the offence was negated. The tramp and petrol.
R v Sheehan and Moore [1975]
Where the defendant has the necessary mens rea despite his intoxicated state the he is?
What does this also apply to? The common catchphrase.
then he is still guilty of the offence.
The intoxication does not provide a defence, i.e. drunken intent is still intent.
This also applies to cases of ‘Dutch courage.’
Give a case for ‘Dutch Courage’ cases.
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]
Had intent before becoming intoxicated and committing the murder- only drank to go through with it
Where the offence charged is one of basic intent then intoxication is not a defence.
This is because voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered…
Give a case.
a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea of these offences. DPP v Majewski [1976]
FAIR ENOUGH.
The courts in recent cases have taken a slightly different approach. What was it?
The courts now will direct the jury in determining whether the defendant would have realised the risk of injury or damage occurring had the defendant not been intoxicated.
Richardson and Irwin [1999]
If the jury decide that the defendants would not have realised the risk of injury to the victim, even if they were sober, then the jury should find the defendants not guilty.
Where the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder brought on by past voluntary intoxication, he or she can use this as a defence.
R v Harris [2013]
