Special Paper

Question 1

What does the term intoxication cover?

Answer 1

Alcohol, drugs, solvents

Question 2

What must the consequences of the intoxication be?

Answer 2

D is incapable of forming the mens rea

Question 3

Is intoxication common law or statutory?

Answer 3

Common law- developed through precedent

Question 4

What is the balance the courts have to maintain?

Answer 4

Public policy and legal principle

Question 5

What percentage of crimes are committed by a D who is intoxicated?

Answer 5

50%

Question 6

How is the defence of intox inconsistent with other defences?

Answer 6

Defence must raise it an judge cannot raise it so it limits the grounds of appeal

Question 7

Who has to raise the defence of intox?

Answer 7

Defence- or it will not be considered

Inconsistent with other defences

Question 8

What is the difference between raising the defences in Rossiter 1994 and Groark 1999?

Answer 8

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?

Question 9

Which case allowed voluntary intox to be a defence for specific intent crimes?

Answer 9

Beard 1920

Question 10

What was the legal principle in Beard?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

What happened in the case of Sheehan and Moore?

Answer 11

D’s use of the defence was sucessful but D’s were convicted of involuntary m/s under the fallback principle

Question 12

What were the legal principles out of Gallagher?

Answer 12

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

Question 13

What is the fallback principle?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

What were the legal principles in Lipman?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

What were the legal principles in Majewski?

Answer 15

Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to a BIC

D had been reckless in getting v intox therefore fulfilling MR

Question 16

What is the legal principle in Richardson and Irwin?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

What is involuntary intox?

Answer 17

D takes intox substance and is unaware of having done so

Question 18

What did Pearson say about invol intox?

Answer 18

If a party be made drunk by stratagem or the fraud of another, he is not responsible

Question 19

What are the 4 main situations where D’s intox will be treated as invol?

Answer 19

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

Question 20

What was the legal principle in Bailey?

Answer 20

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

Question 21

What is the legal principle in Allen?

Answer 21

Intox was V if D had not realised the strength of the drink

Question 22

What is the legal principle in Kingston?

Answer 22

A drugged intent is still an intent in cases of II- must not have necessary MR

Question 23

What is the legal principle in Hardie?

Answer 23

D had no MR took valium which should have soporific or sedative effect