Intoxication

Question 1

Intoxication

Answer 1

Intoxication can not be used as a defence but can be used to help support the claims that men’s rea is lacked.

Question 2

Voluntary and involuntary intoxication

Answer 2

The main difference in intoxication is that it’s not always voluntary as it can be involuntary and involuntary intoxication is a useable defence.

Question 3

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 3

Involuntary intoxication is when someone voluntarily drinks alcohol or consumes a substance knowing the effect it can cause. R v Allen

Question 4

R v Allen

Answer 4

R v Allen, appellant drank home made wine then commuted offences. He tried deferring the blame to not knowing the strength of his home made wine but he still did voluntarily consume the wine so he could not use intoxication as a defence.

Question 5

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 5

Involuntary intoxication is if you consume alcohol or drugs through no knowledge of your own, it can also be if you take a legal drug that has an unexpected result.R v Hardie.

Question 6

R v Hardie

Answer 6

After consuming out of date Vallieum tables that weren’t his, he set a wardrobe on fire then was told to leave the house. Even though he was intoxicated and didn’t know they were out of date he was still convicted of arson as he voluntarily took the drugs.

Question 7

Difference between basic and specific intent Crime

Answer 7

The difference between a basic and specific intent crime is that a basic intent crime only needs recklessness but a specific intent crime would need some intention or men’s rea alike. DPP v Majewski

Question 8

DPP V Majewski

Answer 8

Appellant attacked people after being intoxicated and tried to appeal that he had no men’s rea but as the crimes were those of basic intent he was convicted.

Question 9

Basic intent Crime

Answer 9

A basic intent crime is any crime as long as there is no men’s rea involved an example of this is involuntary manslaughter as even though the act of killing someone is committed there is no men’s rea to do so.

Question 10

Specific intent crime

Answer 10

A specific intent crime is one that needs intention or men’s rea. An example of this is murder as the act is committed and there is intention when convicted of this.

Question 11

Aggravating factor

Answer 11

When someone is voluntarily intoxicated the courts would be more likely to see this as a aggravating factor rather than a defence. DPP v Beard.

Question 12

Ditch Courage

Answer 12

There is also a concept called ‘Dutch courage’, where someone would become intoxicated to get the courage to commit a crime of specific intent. They would still be convicted of the crime. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland vs Gallagher.

Question 13

Voluntary Intoxication + Specific Intent

Answer 13

Voluntary intoxication can not provide a defence to a crime of basic intent. As the courts believe becoming voluntarily intoxicated as a course of recklessness and does do just enough to fulfil the men’s rea requirements for basic intent crime. DPP v Majewski

Question 14

Involuntary intoxication + Basic and Specific intent crimes

Answer 14

Involuntary intoxication can provide a defence to crimes of basic and specific intent. As it is not seen as reckless and does not satisfy the requirements for men’s rea of basic intent crimes.

Question 15

Intent and Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 15

If the defendant does have intention to commit a crime but is involuntary intoxicated, they can still be convicted as they have men’s rea. Example R v Kingston.

Question 16

R v Kingston

Answer 16

In this case the defendant was a homosexual and a pedophile, his drink was spiked and he was put in a room with a 15 year old boy which he then committed gross acts. Even though he was involuntary intoxicated he still had the men’s rea to commit the crime.

Question 17

Evaluation

Answer 17

There is the policy of not allowing people to escape Liability even though they have a weaker control of themselves through voluntary intoxication, there is also the policy that even if someone is involuntary intoxicated they would still be convicted of the crime they committed cause they would’ve had the required men’s rea like seen in R v Kingston