Defence of Intoxication

• Intoxication

  Specific and basic intent crimes was made in DPP V MAJEWSKI:

  • Specific intent offences are generally those where the definition of the offence requires intent only for the means rea
  • Basic intent offences are generally those where the definition of the offence includes recklessness for the mens rea.
• 1. Voluntary intoxication is where D has chosen to take the intoxicating substance. It can also occur where D knows that the effect of a prescribed drug will be to make him intoxicated. Where
  2. D is voluntary intoxicated; D will have a defence to a specific intent crime provided he is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence: SHEEHAN AND MOORE.
  3. Where the offence charged is one of basic intent, voluntary intoxication is not a defence. D is seen as reckless in getting intoxicated so has the mens rea for the basic intent offence: MAJEWSKI.
• Involuntary intoxication is where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance. For example: taking a prescribed drug has caused a unexpected effect of making D intoxicated or a drug commonly known to calm someone down has unexpected opposite effects.

  Involuntary intoxication will not provide a defence if D had the necessary mens rea at the time of the offence: KINGSTON

  Where D did not have the necessary mens rea due to his involuntary intoxication, he will not be guilty of a specific offence nor of a basic intent offence: HARDIE