intoxication defense

Question 1

definition

Answer 1

D drinks/takes drugs and then claims they cannot form the necessary mens rea for a crime and should not be responsible for

Question 2

1. voluntary intoxication

Answer 2

• D takes drugs/drinks of own free will
• the defense will fail
• D cant rely on the fact they didnt know the substance they were taking were stronger than they thought

Question 3

1. involuntary

Answer 3

-D does not know they are taking drugs/alcohol
- defense may succeed if it can be proven that D did not form the necessary mens rea of the crime due to effect of involuntary intoxication
-D can take drugs prescribed by doctors in accordance with the instructions
-D takes a non dangerous drug

Question 4

2. basic intent

Answer 4

-any crime that includes recklessness
-no defense for basic intent crime as voluntarily intoxication is considered recklessness

Question 5

2. specific intent

Answer 5

-only where the courts believe that D was so drunk, he was unable to form the necessary intention
- anything from s18 gbh and above

Question 6

3. exceptions: intoxicated mistake

Answer 6

-an intoxicated mistake wont provide a defense to a crime of basic intent
-only provides a defense to specific intent if they dont form the MR before

Question 7

3. exceptions: intoxication and self defense

Answer 7

-if drunken mistake is about self defense s76(5) criminal justice & immigration act 2008 = D will never have a defense to basic or specific intent crimes