Voluntary Intoxication

Question 1

Def

Answer 1

Voluntary intoxication is where D has chosen to be intoxicated. Whether the defence succeeds is based on if the offence charged is either a basic intent crime or specific intent crime.

Question 2

Basic Intent Crimes

Answer 2

Will always fail as D already has the mens rea as he was reckless by becoming intoxicated.

Question 3

DPP V Majewski

Answer 3

It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea.

Question 4

DPP V Majewski A03

Answer 4

P- law commission criticised Majewski ruling as too harsh as they didn’t intend the crime, they intend to be intoxicated.
DP - This goes against basic principles of liability and the Criminal Justice Act as the mens rea is being ignored and D should be found guilty if they intend or foresaw the result of their actions.
WDP - Problems with the distinction between crimes of basic and specific intent which means it inconsistent and illogical. Intoxication can provide a defence for attempted rape but not rape. (Fotheringham)

Question 5

Specific Intent crimes

Answer 5

Intoxication may provide a defence if it prevented the D from forming intention

Question 6

Fall back Principle

Answer 6

when the D will convicted of a lesser crime.

Question 7

Sheehan and Moore

Answer 7

Defence succeeded as they didn’t form the mens rea of murder as they were too drunk to form the intention to kill or GBH. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Question 8

Sheehan and Moore A03

Answer 8

P - voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes are still strict favouring public policy. Even if D has no MR he will be liable of a lesser crime which sends a strong deterrent message to society.
Dp - however the fallback principle is not fair as they have chosen to drunk (reckless) so no defence.
WDP - Fallback principle cannot always be used for all types of crime for example for theft ,D may be voluntary intoxicated and will be completely acquitted therefore putting the public in danger.

Question 9

Dutch Courage

Answer 9

D has deliberately drunk in order to provide the courage to commit an offence. Unable to use defence as there is still intent before being intoxicated.

Question 10

AG V Gallagher

Answer 10

Lord Denning held that intoxication could not provide a defence as D had already formed the mens rea before the intoxication took place.