voluntary intoxiaction Flashcards
sheehan and moore
whist drunk , the defendants set fire to a homeless man killing him . the judge empathised that the test is whether they have formed the means rea , not whether they are capable. here they did not form the means rea for murder,so were found guilty of a fallback ‘lesser crime’ of unlawful act manslaughter
coley
the defendant smoked cannabis and played a violent video game . later that night , he attacked a neighbour with a knife (specific intent crime) he was held to have the mens rea of attempted murder so will be charged with that crime, as he has been acting out the role of the character in his game.
DPP V Majewski
D consumed drugs and alcohol and attacked the landlord of a pub, and then attacked the police officer who came to arrest him. he could not use intoxication as a defence to the basic intent crimes he has committed
A-G of Northen Ireland V Gallagher
D decided to kill his wife, bought a knife to do the killing and a bottle of whisky to give himself ‘dutch courage’. he drank the whisky, killed his wife when he was unable to form the mens rea, but he had formed the mens rea before becoming intoxicated and was found guilty of murder
lipman
D and his girlfriend had taken the hallucinatory drug LSD before falling asleep . D thought he was being attacked by snakes at the centre of earth and awoke to find his girlfriend died , having strangled her and stuffed the bedsheets into her mouth , as he thought she was a snake attacking him. His intoxicated mistake meant he could not form the means rea for the specific intent crime of murder . he was reckless when taking drugs however , and convicted of manslaughter, a basic intent crime
intro
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
- chooses to take intoxicating substance
voluntary intoxication can occur where the defendant chooses to take the intoxicating substance, or where the defendant has taken a prescribed drug knowing it will make him intoxicated.
2.mens rea for specific intent crime
if the defendant is so intoxicated that he had not formed the mens rea for for a specific intent crime, he will be found guilty of a lesser ‘fallback’ crime as in lipman the intoxication must therefore be extreme as in sheehan and moore . if the defendant has formed the mens rea for a specific intent crime , they will be charged with that crime as in coley
voluntarily intoxication however is not a defence to basic intent crimes, established in DPP V Majewski
- (if relevant) dutch courage
if relevant - if the defendant has the necessary mens rea for the offence ,despite their intoxication, then they are guilty. for example this can happen in ‘dutch courage’ cases ( getting drunk in order to commit the crime) ,where D had the means rea initially but later when committing the actus reus does not have the means rea due to intoxication, set out in A-G for northen ireland v gallagher
- (if relevant) intoxicated mistake
where D is unable to form the mens rea due to an intoxicated mistake about a key fact there will be no defence to basic intent crime, a mistake will be sufficient for recklessness , but it may be a defence to specific intent crimes , set out in lipman
conclusion
to conclude, D may use the defence of voluntary intoxication, [but may be found guilty of a basic intent crime such as eg.manslaughter instead of murder]
