INTOXICATION

Question 1

What must the intoxication do?

Answer 1

Make D incapable of forming MR

Question 2

Is intox common law or statute

Answer 2

Common law- developed through precedent

Question 3

What balance must the law on intox achieve?

Answer 3

Public policy and legal principle

Question 4

How many of all violent are committed by a D who is intox?

Answer 4

50%

Question 5

What is the SIC/BIC division for voluntary and involuntary intox?

Answer 5

Voluntary- SIC can have a defence but not if they were capable of forming MR
BIC no defence under any circumstances

Involuntary- SIC and BIC can access a defence but not always

Question 6

Who must raise the defence of intox and how does this vary from other defences?

Answer 6

D must raise the defence and if they do not then they cannot access the defence
Unlike other defences as if D doesn’t raise defence then the judge is not required to

Question 7

What happened in the case of Rossiter 94 and Groark 99

Answer 7

Rossiter- LOC judge didn’t raise defence and therefore the appeal in c of a was successful
Groark- judge did not raise intoxication but failure to do so didn’t make any difference

Question 8

What was the case of Beard about?

Answer 8

Raped a 13 year old girl and out hand over her mouth in irder to stop her screaming. V died if suffocation

Question 9

What was the legal principle in Beard?

Answer 9

When D is intoxicated he can have the defence to a SIc providing that the intoxication prevents D from forming the necessary mens rea

Question 10

Who was the HOL judge in Beard?

Answer 10

Lord Birkenhead

Question 11

What happened in the case of Sheehan and Moore?

Answer 11

Got drunk and threw petrol over a tramp and set fire to him. Too drunk it have formed intention
Under fallback principle they were convicted of manslaughter

Question 12

Which case introduced Dutch courage?

Answer 12

Gallagher

Question 13

What happened in the case of Gallagher and what is the legal principle?

Answer 13

Wanted to kill his wife but drank a lot of whiskey before doing so.
He couldn’t use the defence because he still harps intention even if he was very drunk when he did so.
A drunken intent is still an intent

Question 14

What happened in the case of Lipman?

Answer 14

Took LSD. D had a bad ‘trip’ and thought he was attacking snakes
Intention for murder could not be formed

Question 15

What was the legal principle in Lipman?

Answer 15

If intention for murder cannot be proven the. The court may consider involuntary manslaughter- only need subjective recklessness
By taking drugs d has been subjectively reckless

Question 16

What happened in the case of majewski? (Legal processes as well)

Answer 16

D drank heavily and was thrown out and tried to get back in and injured the landlord and a customer in the process
Charged with ABH
C of A asked the HOL if D could be convicted if an assault when drunk when he had no intention if doing the act
HOL said d could and that it was reckless conduct to get oneself blind drunk and recklessness was enough for MR

Question 17

What is the legal principle in Majewski?

Answer 17

For BIC voluntary intox is no defence even if they did not intend to commit the offence and was so drunk they were incapable of forming MR

Question 18

Who was the judge in majewski?

Answer 18

Lord Elwyn Jones

Question 19

What happened in the case of Richardson and Irwin and legal principle

Answer 19

Two students lifted. Third over a balcony and dropped him to the ground causing serious injuries
Convicted but court of appeal said they shouldn’t have used an objective test and it should have been asked what the students would have seen if they had not been drinking
LP- not just assume guilt because committed offence while intox
Jury should be directed assume that d was sober and assess what they would have foreseen in that situation

Question 20

What is the principle from Pearson?

Answer 20

If a party be made drunk by stratagem or the fraud of another, he is not responsible

Question 21

What are the 4 main situations where Ds voluntary intox will be treated as involuntary?

Answer 21

Taken under medical prescription (Bailey)
Taking a drug known to have a soporific or sedative effect (Hardie)
Taken by D without his/her knowledge- spiked drink situation
Taken under duress

Question 22

Legal principle in Allen

Answer 22

The intoxication was still voluntary even though D had not realised the strength of the drink

Question 23

What was the legal principle in Kingston

Answer 23

A drugged intent is still an intent

He intended to do so before becoming intox

Question 24

What is the legal principle in Hardie

Answer 24

No MR because had not been reckless in becoming intoxicated as the Valium should have had a soporific effect

Question 25

Can D use intox if he has been charged with BIC and is in a self induced state resulting from VI?

Answer 25

No

Question 26

What principle was shown in Sullivan?

Answer 26

Automatism not apply I’m BIC when self induced by drink or drugs

Question 27

What happened in the case of Fotheringham

Answer 27

No defence to rape whether the issue was belief of consent or mistaken belief of identity

Question 28

What happened in the case of Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 28

Honest mistaken belief in consent to damage on Ds behalf even if the cause of mistake was intox

Question 29

What is the legal principle in O’Grady?

Answer 29

Drunken mistake about the amount if force needed in self defence no a defence to a BIC

Question 30

What is the legal principle in Hatton?

Answer 30

Drunken mistake about force required for self defence not a defence for a SIC

Question 31

What is the legal principle in Heard?

Answer 31

Sexual assault is a BIC so no defence

Question 32

What does the term intox cover?

Answer 32

Alcohol, drugs, solvents