INTOXICATION

Question 1

voluntary intoxication

Answer 1

Basic and specific intent, basic never allowed as reckless as to getting pissed, specific maybe as long as no Mr

Question 2

basic intent

Answer 2

intent/ recklessness eg. battery ABH s.20
already have mr by being reckless

DPP V MAJEWSKI- reckless enough to constitute necessary mr

Question 3

specific intent

Answer 3

just intent eg. S.18 theft murder
allowed if mr is prevented from forming (FB principle)

SHEEHAN AND MOORE

Question 4

SHEEHAN AND MOORE

Answer 4

ds extremely drunk and set fire to homeless man, ds didn’t form men’s tea as too drunk to form, involuntary man slaughter.

Question 5

applies to drugs too

Answer 5

LIPMAN

Question 6

LIPMAN

Answer 6

d and v took lsd where d hallucinated battling snakes and strangled her, no intent.

no intent due to drugs

Question 7

dutch courage 
(no defence)

Answer 7

ag v gallagher - intent former before intoxication

Question 8

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 8

defence to both basic and specific intent depends on forming of MR

SOPORIFIC, LACED DRINKS, PRESCRIBED

Question 9

soporific drugs

Answer 9

permitted as long as no recklessness,

HARDIE

Question 10

HARDIE

Answer 10

took valium but had adverse reaction + set fire to wardrobe, complete defence as no recklessness

Question 11

prescribed drugs

Answer 11

allowed as no specific intent at all

bailey

Question 12

Laced drinks

Answer 12

d must lack necessary men’s tea
or no defence

KINGSTON

Question 13

KINGSTON

Answer 13

former business associated lurked nonce and 15yr old and drugged both, filmed him being a bacon. d claimed invol but drunk intent is still intent

Question 14

BASIC AND SPECIFIC A03

Answer 14

problems of distinction so illogical, eg intoxication provides defence to rape but not attempted as tape can be committed recklessly but attempted is specific intent

Question 15

DRUGS a03

Answer 15

despite more relaxed and modern approach favouring public policy and discouraged use of drugs

Question 16

FB PRINCIPLE a03

Answer 16

get lesser conviction however theft has no fallback wilhich could result in offenders being released into public

Question 17

INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION A03

Answer 17

need to reform where ds inhibitions are broken down , eg in kingston not taken into account he had no intent of being imtoxocated - upholds public policy

Question 18

intoxication and other defences

Answer 18

if drunken mistake it about self defence then no defence alllwed

o’grady (ashtray)

Question 19

REFORMS

Answer 19

1975 butler committee,
create new defence of dangerous intoxication with max 1yr sentence. - rejected

law commission- intoxication and criminal liability - 2009

abolish majowi and allow defence for basic intent if no mr sober. statutory effect to kingston (codify)
mainly reflect public policy