intoxication

Question 1

Question: What is the common law defence of intoxication?

Answer 1

Answer: It refers to the inability to form mens rea due to alcohol, drugs, or other substances (Sheehan and Moore, Kingston, Heard).

Question 2

Question: What happens if involuntary intoxication is successfully raised as a defense?

Answer 2

Answer: It leads to acquittal as it is a complete defence.

Question 3

Question: Who decides if intoxication evidence goes to the jury?

Answer 3

Answer: The judge decides if there is enough evidence of intoxication to go to the jury (Groark).

Question 4

Question: Can intoxication be used as a defense if D had the required mens rea?

Answer 4

Answer: No, if D had formed the required mens rea, the defense of intoxication cannot be used, regardless of whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary.

Question 4

Question: What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 4

Answer: Involuntary intoxication occurs when D did not voluntarily take the intoxicating substance, such as spiked drinks/food or prescribed drugs with unexpected effects.

Question 5

Question: When can involuntary intoxication apply?

Answer 5

Answer: It applies if prescribed medication taken as directed has an unpredictable effect, or if D unknowingly takes an intoxicating substance (Majewski, Bailey, Hardie).

Question 6

Question: What is the significance of the case Kingston in involuntary intoxication?

Answer 6

Answer: If the prosecution can prove that D had the necessary mens rea before becoming intoxicated, D is still guilty, even if intoxication lowered inhibitions.

Question 7

Question: Define voluntary intoxication.

Answer 7

Answer: Voluntary intoxication occurs when D willingly takes alcohol, drugs, or other substances, including cases where drugs/alcohol have stronger effects than expected.

Question 8

Question: What is the difference between specific and basic intent crimes in relation to voluntary intoxication?

Answer 8

Answer: Specific intent crimes require intention for mens rea (e.g., murder), while basic intent crimes require recklessness (e.g., manslaughter, ABH) (Majewski).

Question 9

Question: Is voluntary intoxication a defense for basic intent crimes?

Answer 9

Answer: No, voluntary intoxication is not a defense for basic intent crimes because recklessness is sufficient for mens rea (Majewski).

Question 10

Question: Can voluntary intoxication negate mens rea for specific intent crimes?

Answer 10

Answer: Yes, voluntary intoxication can negate mens rea if D was incapable of forming the required intent (Beard, Sheehan and Moore, Lipman).

Question 11

Question: What is the significance of the case Gallagher regarding ‘Dutch courage’?

Answer 11

Answer: If D forms the intent to commit a crime while sober and gets intoxicated to carry it out, intoxication is not a defense (Gallagher).

Question 12

Question: Can a mistaken belief due to intoxication be a defense?

Answer 12

Answer: It depends. For specific intent crimes, a mistake due to intoxication might be a defense if D did not form the mens rea. However, for basic intent crimes, mistake is irrelevant (Jaggard v Dickinson).

Question 12

Question: What does the case Allen say about the strength of intoxicants?

Answer 12

Answer: If D did not realize the strength of the intoxicant, the defense may or may not apply depending on whether D had the necessary intent.

Question 13

Question: Can intoxication be a defense for self-defence or prevention of crime?

Answer 13

Answer: No, intoxication cannot be a defense if the mistake relates to self-defense or prevention of crime (R v Hatton, R v O’Grady).

Question 14

Question: What does s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 state about intoxication?

Answer 14

Answer: D cannot rely on a mistaken belief due to voluntary intoxication, even if intoxication triggers paranoia or other episodes (Taj).

Question 15

Question: How does the law treat a ‘drunken intent’?

Answer 15

Answer: A drunken intent is still considered an intent, meaning intoxication does not negate the intent (Sheehan, Kingston).