Voluntary intoxication

Question 1

The defence of

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Voluntary intoxication can occur where

Answer 2

the defendant chooses to take the intoxicating substance, or where the defendant has taken a prescribed drug knowing it will make him intoxicated.

Question 3

Here, voluntary intoxication may apply because

Answer 3

D chose to take the intoxicating substance of… OR has taken the prescribed drug of… knowing it will make him intoxicated.

Question 4

if the defendant is so intoxicated that

Answer 4

He has not formed the mens rea for a specific intent crime, he will be found guilty of a lesser ‘fallback’ crime as in Lipman. The intoxication must therefore be extreme.

Question 5

Voluntary intoxication however

Answer 5

Is not a defence to basic intent crimes, established in DPP v Majewski.

Question 6

if the defendant has the necessary

Answer 6

mens rea for the offence, despite their intoxication, then they are guilty. For example this can happen in ‘Dutch courage’ cases where D has the mens rea initially but later when committing the actus reus does not have the mens rea due to intoxication, set out in A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.

Question 7

Here, D was probably unable to form the

Answer 7

mens rea of the offence of… because he had drunk so much, and had no recollection of events and because the the offence is one of specific intent, he will be found not guilty. OR because the offence of… is one of basic intent, he cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defence and will be found guilty.

Question 8

Where D is unable to

Answer 8

Form the mens rea due to an intoxicated mistake about a key fact there will be no defence to a basic intent crime, as a mistake will be sufficient for recklessness, but it may be a defence to a specific intent crime set out in Lipman.

Question 9

Here D was unable to form the mens rea due an

Answer 9

intoxicated mistake about a key fact when D… and can be a defence as the offence was one of specific intent OR cannot be a defence as the offence was one of basic intent OR the intoxicated mistake was about the amount of forced used in self defence and will not be a defence.

Question 10

To conclude ,

Answer 10

D may use the defence of voluntary intoxication, but may be found guilty of a basic intent crime such as eg. manslaughter, S.20