Intoxication Cases

Question 1

DPP v Beard (vol intox specific)

Answer 1

Facts: d was intoxicated and raked a girl and put his hand over her mouth and suffocated her

Ratio: if they are so intoxicated they cannot form the MR that should be taken into account that d may not have MR- introduces fall back offence

Question 2

A-G for NI v Gallagher(vol intox specific)

Answer 2

Facts: d was aggressive psychopath and got drunk and killed his wife

Ratio: form MR before AR all the intoxication gives duton courage

Question 3

DPP v Majewski (vol intox basic)

Answer 3

Facts: d went on a 48 he bender and got into a few fights

Ratio: by being vol intox you are by definition reckless. Therefore u have MR for basic intent

Question 4

R v Harris( vol intox basic)

Answer 4

Facts: d depressed and abused alcohol, d convicted of arson with reckless endangerment of life

Ratio: voluntary intox due to alcohol dependancy

Question 5

R v Kingston( invol intox specific)

Answer 5

Facts: d was set up. D went to abuse v and blackmailer photographed him

Ratio: if the d still corks MR if intoxicated then invol offence committed

Question 6

R v Lipman (vol intox specific)

Answer 6

Facts: d had taken LSD and was having hallucinations and crammed bedsheet in girls mouth

Ratio: intoxication can be used for specific but not basic

Question 7

R v o’Grady

Answer 7

Facts: d got drunk with friends in the middle of the night he claimed v was attacking him so he then picked up a glass ashtray and hit v with it which resulted in his death

Ratio: d is not entitled to rely so far as self defence is concerned Upon a mistake of fact which has been induced by vol intox