intoxication Flashcards
intoxication is in the argument of……
public policy argument
what is the public policy argument
an argument that assesses a decision in terms of how that decision affects society as a whole
why was the public policy put in place
cant treat drunk people better then sober people
what is the public policy argument in simple terms
aimed to protect the public from those who, by reason of intoxication pose a threat or danger.
what does criminal liability involve in intoxication
actus reus and mens rea
how does intoxication affect criminal liability
establish weather the defendant formed the mens rea at the time of the act
what is the case that links voluntary intoxication
R V Lipman 1970
what happened in the case R v Lipman 1970 relating to voluntary intoxication
D took LSD, he then strangled and suffocated his girlfriend, convicted of manslaughter, did not have the men’s rea for murder.
LP- voluntary intoxication is classed as reckless behavior, therefore he had the appropriate men’s rea for manslaughter
what is the definition of intoxication
under influence of alcohol, drugs or other substances
what is the definition of voluntary intoxication
taking alcohol and drugs willingly
what is the definition of involuntary intoxication
not taking alcohol or drugs willingly
what are the two questions that the court has to use in order to find out if intoxication can be used as a defense
- whether the defendant became intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily
- whether the offence charged is classes as a crime of basic or specific intent
what is the case for involuntary intoxication
R v Kingston 1994
what happened in the case R v Kingston in relation to involuntary intoxication
D was homosexual pedophile, him and 15 yr old boy was lured and they drugged both of them, D sexually abused the boy, D convicted of indecent assault.
LP- if a D had formed the men’s rea for an offence involuntary intoxication cannot be a defence
what case related to the rule of basic and specific intent
DPP v Majewski 1977
what happened in the case DPP v Majewski 1977 relating to the different intent
D was charged with the offence of section 47 assault, ABH, against a policeman after becoming voluntary intoxicated, the D was convicted
LP- voluntary intoxication may be used as a defence in crImes of specific intent
what is a specific intent crime
require a men’s rea higher than recklessness
what are examples of specific intent crimes
murder
theft
robbery
arson/criminal damage with intent
handling stolen goods
what is a basic intent crime
men’s rea is reckless and they still get charged the same
examples of basic intent crime
manslaughter
rape
arson/culminal damage reckless
assault and battery
what happens if it is a specifc intent crime and has intoxication as a defence
if there is a lesser charge, reduce the sentence e.g. murder to manslaughter
if no lesser sentence than is will be acquitted
why will they still get charged the same with a basic intent if intoxication is used as a defense
if D is voluntary intoxicated their conduct is already reckless and therefore they have the required men’s rea
