Special Paper Flashcards
What does the term intoxication cover?
Alcohol, drugs, solvents
What must the consequences of the intoxication be?
D is incapable of forming the mens rea
Is intoxication common law or statutory?
Common law- developed through precedent
What is the balance the courts have to maintain?
Public policy and legal principle
What percentage of crimes are committed by a D who is intoxicated?
50%
How is the defence of intox inconsistent with other defences?
Defence must raise it an judge cannot raise it so it limits the grounds of appeal
Who has to raise the defence of intox?
Defence- or it will not be considered
Inconsistent with other defences
What is the difference between raising the defences in Rossiter 1994 and Groark 1999?
Rossiter’s defence did not raise question of LOC so it is due to judge but judge did not so got aquitted
But Groark’s defence did not raise intox and judge is not required to in intox so appeal was dismissed- unfair?
Which case allowed voluntary intox to be a defence for specific intent crimes?
Beard 1920
What was the legal principle in Beard?
When D is voluntarily intox, D has the defence to a crime of specific intent providing the intox prevented him from forming the necessary MR
What happened in the case of Sheehan and Moore?
D’s use of the defence was sucessful but D’s were convicted of involuntary m/s under the fallback principle
What were the legal principles out of Gallagher?
Drinking to get ‘Dutch Courage’ to commit the offence cannot use intox as a defence
A drunken intent is still an intent
D will only be able to use defence if he had rendered himself so completely intox that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing
What is the fallback principle?
If D is successful to use defence of intox for a SIC then he does not escape liability and will be found liable of a basic intent crime
What were the legal principles in Lipman?
If intention cant be proved then the court can consider involuntary m/s as it only needs subjective recklessness
Voluntarily taking drugs- D had been reckless
What were the legal principles in Majewski?
Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to a BIC
D had been reckless in getting v intox therefore fulfilling MR
What is the legal principle in Richardson and Irwin?
NOT BINDING
D should not be considered to be automatically guilty because they have committed the AR whilst intox
unless prosecution can prove otherwise- should assume that D was sober and assess what they would have foreseen in that situation
What is involuntary intox?
D takes intox substance and is unaware of having done so
What did Pearson say about invol intox?
If a party be made drunk by stratagem or the fraud of another, he is not responsible
What are the 4 main situations where D’s intox will be treated as invol?
Taken under medical prescription where drugs have unexpected effect of making D intox
Commonly known to have a soporific or sedative effect
Taken without their knowledge ‘spiked drinks’
Taken under duress
What was the legal principle in Bailey?
CofA clarified the rules governing self induced automatism-
II may arise from unexpected side effects of taking prescribed drugs
Can be defence to SIC and BIC providing D had not been reckless
In BIC if self induced automatic state is result of VI a defence of automatism is unavailable
What is the legal principle in Allen?
Intox was V if D had not realised the strength of the drink
What is the legal principle in Kingston?
A drugged intent is still an intent in cases of II- must not have necessary MR
What is the legal principle in Hardie?
D had no MR took valium which should have soporific or sedative effect
