intoxication

Question 1

When does intoxication work as a defence?

Answer 1

When it negates D’s mens rea.

Question 2

What factors need to be considered for intoxication?

Answer 2

-The type of intoxication
-The type of crime

Question 3

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 3

D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance e.g. by drinking or taking drugs. A defendant will also be regarded as voluntarily intoxicated where he knows that the effect of a prescription drug will make him intoxicated.

Question 4

What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 4

D is not aware he is taking an intoxicating substance e.g. spiking or an unexpected effect of a drug.

Question 5

What are specific intent crimes?

Answer 5

Crimes where D must have intention for the mens rea.

Question 6

What are some examples of specific intent crimes?

Answer 6

-Theft
-s18
-Murder
-Robbery
-s9(1)(a) burglary
-s9(1)(b) burglary- theft
-Attempts

Question 7

What are basic intent crimes?

Answer 7

D can have recklessness for the mens rea.

Question 8

What are some examples of basic intent crimes?

Answer 8

-Assault
-Battery
-s47
-s20
-UAM
-GNM
-s9(1)(b) burglary- GBH

Question 9

Which case applies to voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences where the intoxication negates the mens rea?

Answer 9

Lipman- D will not be convicted of a specific intent offence if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea of the offence. But if there is a related basic intent crime (e.g. UAM instead of murder), this will be used instead.

Question 10

Which case applies to voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences where the intoxication doesn’t negate the mens rea?

Answer 10

Gallagher- if the defendant has the required mens rea of the specific intent offence despite his intoxicated state, then he will be guilty of the specific intent crime. Drunken intent is still intent. (In this case, the single transaction theory was used to prove D has the mens rea for the offence).

Question 11

What is the rule for voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 11

DPP v Majewski- voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated and this can be transferred to satisfy the mens rea of the crime.

Question 12

What is the rule for involuntary intoxication and specific intent offences?

Answer 12

Kingston- if D has the mens rea of the specific offence despite the intoxication, he will still be guilty of the specific intent crime. In other words a drugged intent is still intent. However, if the intoxication negates the mens rea, he will not be guilty.

Question 13

What is the legal principle of Allen?

Answer 13

To be regarded as involuntary intoxication, the intoxication has to be completely involuntary. If D knows he is taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of its strength, this will be treated as voluntary intoxication.

Question 14

What is the rule for involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 14

Hardie- when D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated. If D has not been reckless in the offence either, then he will not have the mens rea required and will be found not guilty.

Question 15

What did the case of Lipman show about intoxicated mistakes?

Answer 15

D is allowed to make drunken mistakes.

Question 16

What is the general rule about making mistakes in self defence?

Answer 16

D is allowed to make honest mistakes about whether the use of force is necessary.

Question 17

Can D make drunken mistakes about self defence?

Answer 17

R v O’Grady- D is not allowed to make drunken mistakes about self defence. This is largely a policy decision to stop people getting intoxicated and saying they felt threatened in some way.