Intoxication Scenario

Question 1

Paragraph 1: definition

Answer 1

defence which throws doubt on D’s ability to form required MR for offence which depends on if intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and if offence charged was one of specific or basic intent

a) voluntary- D chose to take intoxicating substance and knows its effects (DPP v Beard)
b) involuntary- D didn’t know substance was intoxicating or took due to medical advice or took non-dangerous drug non recklessly (Hardie)

Question 2

paragraph 2: voluntary

Answer 2

a) never defence to basic intent crimes (majewski - exception richardson v irwin as jury should consider whether D’s would’ve realised risk if weren’t drunk)
b) can be defence to specific intent crime
c) only defence when intoxication prevents MR being formed (sheehan v moore)
d) if D formed MR already then liable even if wouldn’t have behaved that way if sober (AG for NI, allen, coley)
e) past intoxication: if D suffering from mental disorder caused by past vol intoxication then can use defence (harris)

Question 3

paragraph 3: involuntary

Answer 3

defence to any crime as long as intoxication prevents MR being formed (kingston, lipman, hatton, o-grady - exception jaggard v dickinson)