involuntary intoxication

Question 1

kingston

Answer 1

D’s coffee was drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him . D was shown a 15 year old boy and was invited to abuse him . D did so , and was photographed by the blackmailer . D was convicted of indecent assault as he was able to form the mens rea for the offence despite being drugged

Question 2

hardie

Answer 2

D was depressed after his girlfriend told him to move out of their flat. he told some vallium tablets in order to calm himself down , but then he set fire to a wardrobe in the flat, later saying he did now know what he was doing due to the tablets . not reckless because he was not aware of the risks of takaing vallium, and was not convicted of the basic intent crime

Question 3

Intro

Answer 3

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 4

1.involuntary intoxication

Answer 4

involuntary occurs where the defendant does not choose to take the intoxicating substance or where he has taken a prescribed drug not knowing it will make him intoxicated, as in hardie

Question 5

2. basic/specific intent crimes

Answer 5

involuntary intoxication can be a defence to both specific and basic intent crimes , if the defendant is unable to form the mens rea due to extreme intoxication, as in hardie , but is not a defence where the defendant was able to form the mens rea, established in kingston

Question 6

conclusion

Answer 6

D may be found not guilty due to involuntary intoxication