Intoxication

Question 0

Specific intent and basic intent?

Answer 0

Specific: requires intention ie. s18, murder

Basic: intention or recklessness ie. non fatals up to s20

Question 1

Only works as a defence of it?

Answer 1

Negates men’s rea
Question yourself:
- was it a basic or specific intent crime?
- was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary

Question 2

1. Voluntary intoxication:

Answer 2

where d has chosen to take an intoxicating substance eg. Alcohol/ drugs

(Can also be where d knows that a prescribed drug can make him intoxicated)

Question 3

Specific intent

Answer 3

R v Lipman - high on LSD, killed girlfriend- MR was negated = manslaughter

R v Sheehan and Moore- defence was available

Gallagher - still had mr for murder = no defence

Question 4

Basic intent

Answer 4

R v majewski: voluntary intoxication is seen as being reckless
Recklessness for crime can be transferred to recklessness for being intoxicated voluntarily which is enough for a basic intent crime
TOP TRUMP

Question 5

2. Involuntary intoxication

Answer 5

Where d is not aware of the intoxicating substance eg. Spiked or unusual effect of prescribed drugg

Question 6

Specific intent

Did d have mr? If yes- guilty (Kingston)

Answer 6

Allen- intoxication must be completely involuntary

If d knows he’s drinking alcohol but doesn’t know it’s strength it’s still treated as being voluntary

Question 7

Basic intent

Answer 7

D hasn’t been reckless in becoming intoxicated = not reckless for crime and defence IS available - r v hardie

Question 8

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 8

Specific = defence if mr not formed
Basic= no defence as d has mr

Question 9

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 9

Specific = defence if mr not formed
Basic= defence if me not formed