Voluntar Intoxication Template

Question 1

A potential defence……

Answer 1

that may be available for D is intoxication.

Question 2

The first issue to……

Answer 2

Be decided is whether D is legally intoxicated.
R v Kingston defines legal intoxication as the position where D is in a state of automatism and so can’t form the necessary MR for the offence.
The issue therefore is whether D is simply drunk or legally intoxicated.
R v Kingston confirms drunken intent is still an intent.
APPLICATION

Question 3

However….

Answer 3

Assuming the court accepted that he was legally intoxicated the next issue to determine is whether the intoxication has been caused voluntarily or involuntarily.
APPLICATION

Question 4

Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to…….

Answer 4

Certain crimes dependant on whether the crime is one of basic or specific intent, DPP v Lipman.
Crimes of specific intent are crimes of intention only which means that the defendant’s reckless behaviour in becoming intoxicated doesn’t prove the necessary MR for the crime, DPP v Lipman.
In this case case D voluntarily took LSD and then killed his girlfriend whilst on a hallucinogenic trip. He was charged with murder which is a crime of specific intent and it was found that he had not formed the necessary MR which is the intention to kill or cause GBH.
This gave him a defence to the offence of murder but not to manslaughter as this is a crime of basic intent.

Question 5

Basic intent offences are those…

Answer 5

which have the MR of both intention and recklessness. DPP v Majewski states that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences. The reckless behaviour of becoming voluntarily intoxicated provides evidence of the necessary recklessness that the prosecution is required to prove.
Majewski assaulted his victims after recklessly taking a mixture of drugs + alcohol.
APPLICATION