Intoxication Flashcards
1
Q
R v Woolmington
A
- D must form AR and R of offence
- Intoxication will act as a defence if the D can show he did not form the relevant MR
2
Q
R v Pordage
A
- The issue is not one of capability, but one of whether the MR was actually formed
3
Q
There are 4 methods of involuntary intoxication;
A
- Lacing of food/drink
- Mistake of strength of drug (R v Allen)
- Prescription drugs taken in concordance with prescription
- R v Hardie - Drug not considered dangerous but has unknown and adverse affect on the individual
4
Q
Voluntary intoxication
A
- Can only occur through a known dangerous drug e.g. alcohol
5
Q
DPP v Majewski
A
- Intoxication not a defence to crimes of basic intent as the recklessness element has already been satisfied
- Intoxication can be a defence to a crime of specific intent if it precludes the MR
6
Q
R v Kingston
A
- Where intoxication does not prevent the MR being formed but frees the D of inhibitions it will not be a defence
- Drugged paedophile
7
Q
R v Heard
A
- Argued for voluntary intoxication only as a defence to result crimes
- Currently intoxication could be a defence to a rape charge, as it is a crime of specific intent
8
Q
R v Lipman
A
Intoxication precluded the MR where LSD caused D to kill a young girl. However did not form the MR so offence prosecuted as manslaughter as this is a crime of basic intent (recklessness)
9
Q
R v Sheehan & Moore
A
A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent
10
Q
R v O’grady; R v O’Connor (2 drunken Irish fighters)
A
A defendants drunken mistake cannot be relied on for the purposes of self defence
11
Q
R v Morhall
A
- Intoxication will make proving loss of control harder as the defence will have to show that the loss of control would occur without drink
