Intoxication

• Intoxication

  Includes alcohol, drugs, glue etc.

  MUST BE SO INTOXICATED THAT THEY DID NOT FORM THE MR.

  Relevant to whether D had MR for offence.

  D may not be guilty if he did not have required MR due to intoxicated state.

  
• Voluntary Intoxication- Specific intent crimes


  Where D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance and D knows that effect of prescribed drug will make him intox.

  Vol. Intox. can negate the MR for a specific intent offence.

  MAIN QUESTION: Was D so intox. that he did not form MR for offence?

  D will still be guilty if he has the necessary MR for the offence despite his intox. Drunken intent = still intent.

  (Sheehan) - D too drunk to form intent to kill or cause GBH - not guilty of murder - guilty of M/S.

  (Gallagher) - D drank whisky to gain confidence to kill wife - guilty of murder
• Voluntary Intoxication - Basic intent crimes

  Not a defence.

  Becoming voluntarily intoxicated is considered reckless and sufficient to constitute MR (Majewski).

  However, if jury decides D would not have realised risk even if sober, may find D not guilty.

  The mere fact of intoxication does not make D guilty.

  
• Involuntary Intoxication

  Where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance e.g. spiked drink or unexpected side effect of prescribed drugs.

  TEST - DID D HAVE NECESSARY MR WHEN HE COMMITTED THE OFFENCE?

  Yes = guilty, can't use defence of intoxication.

  No = Not guilty, can rely on defence, has NOT been reckless in getting intoxicated.

  (Kingston) - D guilty of assault - formed MR regardless of having been intoxicated.

  (Hardie) - Took valium w/o realising affect on behaviour - did not have MR, so defence could apply.