Intoxication Flashcards
intoxication
intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is not necessarily a defence but can throw doubt on the defendants ability to form the required mens tea for an offence. the issue arises where, in either case, the defendant is so intoxicated that they cannot form the mens tea.
voluntary intoxication
this is where the d chooses to take a substance, generally drugs and/or alcohol, that they know can cause intoxication. in the case of drugs the drug must be well known to cause unpredictability or aggressiveness.
the COA distinguished between taking dangerous drugs and non dangerous drugs;
1) knowingly taking ‘dangerous drugs’ would equate to voluntary intoxication 2) taking ‘non dangerous’ drugs may count as voluntary intoxication but this depends whether the d understood the impact of the drug upon them 3) voluntary intoxication can be a complete defence to specific intent crimes but will usually not be a defence to crimes of basic intent.
involuntary intoxication
this is where a defendant was unaware they were taking an intoxicating substance and claims they have been “spiked” also substance such as prescription drugs may have unforeseen or unexpected effects on the defendant. therefore; 1) if the d while involuntarily intoxicated did not form the mens res then they are not guilty of the crime. 2) if the defendant while involuntarily intoxicated did form the mens tea then they can be guilty of the crime.
DPP v Beard
the d must be completely incapable of forming the mens tea for the defence to apply
attorney general for NI vs Gallagher
a drunken intent is still an intent
r v hardie
if intoxication is involuntary it may be used as a defence to a criminal charge
r v Kingston
intoxication will not come as a defence if the d’s state of mind at the time of the offence met the criteria for the crime
dpp v majewski
voluntary intoxication will not come as a defence to crimes of basic intent
