Intoxication- Law Flashcards
What is Intoxication ?
Intoxication is a common-law defence for fault based crimes that require MR and is successful when there is no MR.
If it was involuntary intoxication what defence is available ?
He will have a defence to both specific and basic intent crimes as long as he did not form MR.
specific intent - murder, S.18 and attempts
basic intent- Recklessness, manslaughter, S.20,GBH & ABH, assault and battery
D’s been spiked without their knowledge so unaware of consumption of drugs or alcohol, case ?
Case of Kingston - D was a known paedophile and homosexual, D’s drink was spiked, was told to abuse a child and he did so, he was able to form the mens rea so he was convicted
D has taken prescription drugs, case ?
They would have full acquittal unless taken recklessly.
Case of R v Bailey - GBH on ex Gf’s new Bf, he had taken insulin and didn’t eat properly after, if unknown to the side effects he would’ve been acquitted but knew so was being reckless.
The D has an unexpected reaction to soporific drugs, case ?
R v Hardie - After an argument with his wife D took some valium tablets to calm his nerves, should’ve felt drowsy and sleepy, didn’t have its usual effect and under its influence set fire to his flat.
D has taken intoxicating substance under duress
No English precedent but US precedent says this would class as involuntary.
What defences are available for voluntary intoxication ?
VI is a defence to all specific intent crimes but not basic intent
The level of intoxication must be so high that they cannot form the MR, case linked with this ?
Case of DPP v Majewski - He was drinking and taking drugs for hours when involved in fights, charged with no. of counts for assault and at trial claimed to not remember anything. VI not defence to basic intent so he was convicted.
An intoxicated D would not be found guilty of basic intent crimes by simply doing the AR of the offence, what case is linked with it ?
R v Richardson and Irwin - D and the victim were uni students fooling around on a balcony, victim fell off 10 feet, D;s were convicted because they were intoxicated at the time but appealed. Conviction squashed as it doesn’t make them automatically guilty.
What case is linked with Dutch courage and what defence is available ?
Dutch courage is used to commit a crime and there is no Defence available.
It is the case of Gallagher - D wanted to kill his wife so bought a knife and bottle of whisky and he drank this to give him dutch courage, once intoxicated enough he stabbed and killed his wife, he had the MR at the relevant time so guilty.
What defence is there available for a D who made a mistake as to the need for SD due to intoxication ?
None
