intoxication

Question 1

key case and what was held

Answer 1

majewski- the court drew distinction between basic and specific intent crimes

Question 2

what is specific intent crimes

Answer 2

crimes involving intention only e.g murder ,theft,robbery

Question 3

voluntary intoxication for specific intent crime held

Answer 3

the defence will be availiable if d was so intoxicated that they could not form the mens rea

Question 4

basic intent crime is not avaliable for voluntary intoxication why

Answer 4

crimes that can be committed recklessly e.g ABH,assault
the defence will not be given because the fact that D got so intoxicated in the first place is evident itself that they were being reckless

Question 5

what did richardson and irwin hold

Answer 5

the defence of voluntary intoxication may still be avaliable for basic intent crime but only if D would not have seen a risk of harm even if they were sober

Question 6

kingston hold in involuntary intoxication

Answer 6

the defence is avaliable as a defence to crims for both specific and basic intent crimes but only if D was so intoxicated they couldnt form mens rea
“a drugged intent is still an intent”

Question 7

side rule 1 unexpected side effects of prescribed druggs

Answer 7

defence of incoluntary intox is avaliable

Question 8

side rule 2 dutch courage

Answer 8

d gets intox to build up courage in gallhager - no defence as D would have formed the mens rea before they started drinking