Intoxication Flashcards
What are the key stages for using intoxication as a defence?
1.Voluntary or Involuntary intoxication ?
2.Specific or Basic Intent Crime?
- Effect on Liability:
For specific intent crimes, intoxication can be a partial defence.
For basic intent crimes, intoxication is no defence.
4.Involuntary Intoxication: Check if D could form the mens rea for the offence.
What is intoxication as a legal defence?
Intoxication is a common law defence where the defendant (D) claims that their mental capacity to commit the offence was impaired due to the consumption of an intoxicating substance (e.g., alcohol or drugs).
What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication?
Voluntary intoxication is when D chooses to consume intoxicating substances.
Involuntary intoxication is when D does not choose to be intoxicated (e.g., being spiked).
What is the difference between specific intent and basic intent crimes?
Specific intent crimes require D to have an aim or desire for the offence (e.g., murder, s.18 GBH).
.
Basic intent crimes involve recklessness where D foresees a risk but takes it anyway (e.g., assault, battery, s.47 ABH).
How does voluntary intoxication affect liability for different crimes?
For specific intent crimes, voluntary intoxication may be a partial defence (e.g., manslaughter instead of murder).
For basic intent crimes, voluntary intoxication is no defence (e.g., s.47 ABH, s.20 GBH).
Give an example where voluntary intoxication was used as a defence
Sheehan v Moore
R v Lipman
, D’s were intoxicated and killed V’s, but were convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.
Can voluntary intoxication be used as a defence if the D had intent before drinking and case ? Hint: Dutch courage
No, Dutch courage does not work as a defence. In NI Gallagher, D had the intention to kill before drinking and therefore could not use intoxication as a defence.
How does voluntary intoxication affect liability for basic intent crimes and case ?
In DPP v Majewski, D committed basic intent offences (e.g., ABH, assault) after being intoxicated, but the court held that D was reckless in drinking, satisfying the MR for those offences.
What is the concern when using the defence of involuntary intoxication?
The concern is whether D was able to form the mens rea (MR) for the offence committed, not the type of offence.
What are the cases for involuntary in-oxication
Kingston
Hardie
How was involuntary intoxication applied in Kingston and Hardie?
Kingston: D couldn’t use the defence as he was a known paedophile, so he would have committed the offence regardless of intoxication.
Hardie: D successfully used the defence because he was unaware of his actions and could not form the MR for arson.
How to conclude an intoxication
The D may use intoxication as a defence for specific intent crimes (e.g., murder) but not for basic intent crimes (e.g., ABH). If the D cannot form the mens rea due to involuntary intoxication, it may be a complete defence.
