Intoxication (Voluntary)

Question 1

1. The Defence of Intoxication may apply…

Answer 1

The Defence of Intoxication may apply, where the defendant does not have the required mens rea. A distinction is made between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and between basic and specific intent crimes.

Question 2

2. Voluntary Intoxication can occur where the defendant chooses to…

Answer 2

Voluntary Intoxication can occur where the defendant chooses to take the intoxicating substance, or where the defendant has taken a prescribed drug knowing it will make him intoxicated.

Here, [eg. voluntary intoxication may apply because D chose to take the intoxicating substance of…….. OR has taken the prescribed drug of ……….. knowing it will make him intoxicated].

Question 3

3. If the defendant is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for a specific intent crime…

Answer 3

If the defendant is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for a specific intent crime, he will be found guilty of a lesser ‘fallback’ crime (Lipman). The intoxication must therefore be extreme, (Sheehan and Moore). If the defendant has formed the mens rea for a specific intent crime, they will be charged with that crime, (Coley).

Question 4

4. Voluntary intoxication however is not a defence…

Answer 4

Voluntary Intoxication however is not a defence to basic intent crimes, **(DPP v Majewski). **

Question 5

5. If the defendant has the necessary mens rea for the offence, despite their intoxication…

Answer 5

If the defendant has the necessary mens rea for the offence, despite their intoxication, then they are guilty. For example this can happen in ‘Dutch courage’ cases where D has the mens rea initially but later when committing the actus reus does not have the mens rea due to intoxication (getting drunk in order to commit the crime), set out in A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.

Here…

Question 6

6. Where D is unable to form the mens rea due to an intoxicated mistake about a key fact…

Answer 6

Where D is unable to form the mens rea due to an intoxicated mistake about a key fact there will be no defence to a basic intent crime, as a mistake will be sufficient for recklessness, but it may be a defence to a specific intent crime, (Lipman)

Here…

Question 7

7. To Conclude…

Answer 7

To conclude, D may use the defence of voluntary intoxication, [but may be found guilty of a basic intent crime such as eg.manslaughter, S.20]