Intoxication Flashcards
How can you get the defence intoxication
if d does not have the required MR because of his intoxicated state he may hae a defence depending on
- whether the intoxication was voluntary/involuntary
- whether the offence charged is one of specific intent or basic intent
what are the 4 rules
1 - intoxication must negate MR
2 - A druken intent is still an intent
3 - voluntary intoxication is a defence to specific intent crimes but not to basic intent crimes
4 - intoxication is ‘voluntary’even if D did not know the strength of the drink or drugs
‘Intoxication must negate mens rea’
Intoxication can only be used if D has taken drugs/alcohol which have prevented him/her forming the necessary MR for the crime.
SHEEHAN and MOORE
Very drunk D’s set fire to tramp, too drunk to have formed an intent to kill or cause GBH
because the D’s did not have the MR for murder, intoxication was a defence to that offence
‘A drunken intent is still an intent’
If D has formed MR, he will be liable even if he would not have behaved that way if sober
GALLAGHER
D decided to kill his wife and drank a lot of whisky before killing her. If D has the MR then he is guilty even if he would not have committed the offence if sober. In this case the intent was formed prior to the intoxication
‘Voluntary intoxication is a defence to specific intent crimes but not to basic intent crimes’
Majewski RULE- D will not have a defence to basic intent crimes (such as assault) because becoming voluntarily intoxicated is reckless conduct and this replaces the necessary MR.
Case =
D went on a drink and drug binge. assaulted 3 people and arresting police officers. Voluntary intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent but is never a defence to crime of basic intent. Majewski convicted of S47 as it was a basic intent offence.
What happened in Richardson and Irwin
Drunk student dropped friend from balcony (horseplay) convicted of S20.
D must still have been able to form MR of S20 if sober i.e foresee the risk of some harm. if they had been sober would the D’s in this case have realised someone could be hurt from horseplay? not guilty because they were very drunk
‘Intoxication is voluntary even if D did not know the strength of the drink and drugs’
Allen -
D was charged with sexual assault. He claimed that he did not realise the strength of the homemade wine he had been given.
D’s intoxication was still classed as voluntary and he did not have a defence to a basic intent crime.
What does involuntary intoxication include
D does not know they are consuming an intoxicant e.g drink was spiked
D consumes and intoxicating substance under medical advice
what happened in R v Kingston
D DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE CONSUMING INTOXICANT
D’s coffee was spiked, D sexually assaulted boy. D said he would not do it if sober. Even though D’s drink was spiked, involuntary intoxication was not a defence as D had formed necessary intent when the offence was committed.
What happened in Bailey
D CONSUMES INTOXICATING SUBSTANCE UNDER MEDICAL ADVICE
Diabetic, hit V over the head after taking insulin and failing to eat enough
If D lacks MR, then they will have a defence to crimes of specific intent. If D knows his actions are likely to lead to an automatic state, he has been reckless and will not have a defence to crimes of basic intent.
