Paper 1.14 - Intoxication Flashcards
Is intoxication a common law or a statutory defence?
Common law - made by judges.
In the defence of intoxication, who is the burden of proof on and what must they prove?
The burden is on the prosecution, who must prove that d was not intoxicated or had mens rea for the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
What does the defence of intoxication mean?
Intoxication is when d attempts to argue that they were so intoxicated they could not form the mens rea of intent.
How many types of intoxication are there?
Two - voluntary and involuntary.
As a defence, intoxication is rarely awarded. Why is this? (up to 4 reasons)
- prevent it from being used as an excuse.
- voluntary intoxication impacts public negatively.
- 50% of violent crime involves alcohol.
- If intox is overused, it is no longer a deterrent.
What is a specific intent crime?
Mens rea is intention, eg murder.
What is a basic intent crime?
Mens rea is intention or recklessness, eg manslaughter.
If d is charged with a specific intent crime and is successful in proving their defence of voluntary intoxication, what is d charged with instead?
D is charged with the basic intent equivalent eg murder -> manslaughter.
Theft has no basic intent equivalent, so results in an acquittal.
If d is charged with a basic intent crime, is the defence of voluntary intoxication applicable?
No; by being intoxicated, d is being reckless.
If d is charged with a crime and is successful in their defence of involuntary intoxication, what are they convicted of?
No conviction; full acquittal.
What is the Majewski rule, in terms of intoxication?
Majewski 1976 - HoL: intoxication is never a defence from basic intent crimes.
In Fotheringham, D, drunk, got into bed with a 14 year old babysitter. He claimed that his intoxication prevented him from recognising that it wasn’t his wife. What was the outcome of this case?
Since his intoxication was voluntary and rape is a basic intent crime, he had no defence.
In Lipman, D and his girlfriend took LSD before going to bed. The LSD caused D to have hallucinations, convincing him that his girlfriend was a snake trying to kill him. He strangled her in self defence. What was the outcome of the case?
Conviction for manslaughter was upheld; according to Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, there is no defence if d makes a mistake about self defence while intoxicated.
In Jaggard v Dickinson, D, intoxicated, broke into her friend’s house. Her friend consented to her breaking in. However, she mistakenly got the wrong house. What was the outcome of this case?
Her conviction was quashed. In the Criminal Damage Act 1971, Parliament specified in cases of criminal damage, the court must consider d’s state of belief rather than the one that ought to have existed.
In Gallagher, D decided to kill his wife and drunk whiskey for Dutch courage. What was the outcome of this case?
Murder conviction was upheld; MR was formed before he was drunk, therefore no defence of intoxication.
