intoxication

Question 1

intoxication

Answer 1

D has taken drugs, alcohol, or other substances that have substantially incapacitated their judgement
>either D isn’t capable of forming the mens rea
>it has caused D to make a mistake

Question 2

when might a person be intoxicated

Answer 2

> alcohol
drugs
other substances e.g. sniffing glue

Question 3

may have a defence depending on

Answer 3

> the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
the offence is one of basic or specific intent

Question 4

basic intent

Answer 4

these have recklessness as part of the mens rea
e.g manslaughter , s.20 and 47 OAPA 1861, assault, battery, criminal damage

Question 5

specific intent

Answer 5

these have intent only as mens rea
e.g. murder, s.18 OAPA

Question 6

voluntary intoxication

Answer 6

where the D:
>has chosen to take an intoxicating substance
>knows that the effect of taking a prescribed drug will be to make them intoxicated

Question 7

DPP v Beard

Answer 7

D whilst intoxicated raped a 13 yr old girl and put his hand over he mouth
she died from suffocation
‘‘if he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent recquired, he could not be convicted of a crime which’’ only requires intent

Question 8

intoxication must negate mens rea
Sheehan and Moore

Answer 8

Ds were drunk and threw petrol over a tramp and set fire to it.
they were too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or cause GBH.
guilty of manslaughter (basic intent offence)

Question 9

drunken intent is still intent

Answer 9

where the D has the necessary mens rea despite their intoxicated state, then they are still guilty of an offence, as drunken intent is still intent.

Question 10

Gallagher

Answer 10

D decided to kill his wife. He brought a knife and a bottle of whiskey. He drank a large amount of whiskey for ‘‘dutch courage’’ before killing his wife.
he formed intent before becoming intoxicated

Question 11

R v Coley

Answer 11

D was a regular user of cannabis and one evening watched a violent video game. Later on he entered neighbours house and attacked two people with a knife. claimed psychiatric injury but convicted of murder as state of mind was caused by voluntary intoxication

Question 12

Allen

Answer 12

claimed he didn’t realise the strength of his wine that he had been given did not make the intoxication involuntary

Question 13

voluntary intoxication can be a defence to specific intent crimes but NOT to basic intent crimes

Answer 13

R v Majewski - consumed large quantities of drugs and alcohol, then attacked the landlord of the pub also attacked the police who tried to arrest him.
becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct so defence couldn’t be used when mens rea includes recklessness

Question 14

Richardson and Irwin

Answer 14

D threw V over a balcony while drunk
judge should’ve directed that the jury had to be sure that Ds would have foreseen the risk of injury had they been sober

Question 15

past intoxication

Answer 15

where the D is suffering from a mental disorder brought by past voluntary intoxication], he can use this as a defence

Question 16

involuntary intoxication

Answer 16

includes the following situations:
1. D doesn’t know they are consuming an intoxicant
2. D consumes an intoxicating substance under medical advice or an intoxicant commonly known as a ‘‘sedative’’ has an unexpected effect

Question 17

D doesn’t know they’re taking an intoxicating substance

Answer 17

for example, drink is ‘spiked’ with alcohol or drugs OR prescribed drug has an unexpected effect

Question 18

R v Hardie

Answer 18

D consumed out of date Valium tablets prescribed to his partner then set fire to a wardrobe.
where D voluntarily takes a non-dangerous drug that has an unexpected effect, although not prescribed to him

Question 19

Kingston

Answer 19

D was invited to a house where his drink was drugged by a man who wanted to blackmail him. He was shown a 15yr old boy who was unconscious and told him to abuse him.The D had paedophilic tendencies and did so.
Formed mens rea before becoming intoxicated

Question 20

R v Lipman

Answer 20

D and his girlfriend took drugs - D stuffed a bed sheet down her throat as he thought he was fighting a snake.
Acquitted of murder as he was unable to form mens rea
convicted of manslaughter as its a basic intent offence so could use defence of voluntary intoxication

Question 21

R v O’Grady

Answer 21

D and V had been heavy drinking. D woke up and claimed he woke up to V hitting him so he grabbed a glass ashtray hit V with It and went back to sleep . V was dead
D cannot rely on self defence where mistake of the fact was induced by intoxication

Question 22

R v Hatton

Answer 22

Basic intent rule applied to specific intent- a drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence was not a defence