Intoxication

Question 1

Woolmington

Answer 1

If D is intoxicated, he may not be able to form the requisite mens rea

Question 2

R v Kingston

Answer 2

It is no defence to plead that the defendant would not have committed the offence when sober if he had formed the mens rea when intoxicated
Distinguish between no mens rea and release of inhibitions
A drunken intent is still nevertheless an intent

Question 3

DPP v Majewski

Answer 3

Differentiate between crimes of basic intent and crimes of specific intent
Specific intent - voluntary intoxication may mean that the defendant fails to form the MR
Basic intent - voluntary intoxication will not be a defence and may prove recklessness (Would D have recognised the risk had he been sober)

Question 4

R v Heard

Answer 4

All crimes that can be committed recklessly are crimes of basic intent
Crimes that require intention as to act alone are also basic intent
Where crime requires intention as to result, the crime is specific intent

Question 5

R v Coley, McGhee and Harris

Answer 5

Would D have seen the risk had he not been voluntarily intoxicated?

Question 6

R v Hardie

Answer 6

Voluntary intoxication by non-dangerous drugs may be a defence to basic and specific intent crimes
Specific intent - would D have formed the mens rea if sober?
Basic intent - was D reckless in taking the drug?

Question 7

R v Allen

Answer 7

Where D is aware he is drinking alcohol but is mistaken as to its strength, this will be voluntary intoxication

Question 8

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 8

Where a statutory defence allows for honest belief, D will be able to use this even if his belief is due to voluntary intoxication