Intoxication

Created by

Riya M

Cards (15)

Intoxication  
If the defendant does not have the required MR because of his intoxicated state, he may not be guilty
2 key questions
Whether intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
Whether it is an offence of specific or basic intent
Specific intent 
Intention only
Basic intent 
Recklessness applies
Specific intent offences 
Murder, section 18 GBH/wounding, theft and robbery
Basic intent offences 
Involuntary manslaughter, section 20 GBH/wounding, section 47 ABH, assault and battery
Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences
d had chosen to take an intoxicating substance
It can negate the mens Rea for a specific content
If intoxication is accepted GBH section 18 is reduced to section 20 and murder is reduced to unlawful act manslaughter
VI + SI
sheehan and Moore:
defendants were very drunk and perpetual over homeless man and set fire to him
as they were too drunk to form the MR for murder intoxication was a defence
VI + SI 
R v Lipman:
Acquitted of murder as unable to form MR
VI+SI 
Northen Ireland v Gallagher
where the defendant had the necessary MR in spite of the intoxication, he is guilty of the offence
Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences 
Intoxication is not a defence
VI+BI 
Majewski
HOL stated that his intoxicated state was not a defence
VI+BI 
Allen:
as sexual assault is a crime of basic intent - no defence
Involuntary intoxication and specific intent offences
Kingston
The HOL upheld has conviction for indecent assault- decided if a defendant had formed the MR of an offence before becoming intoxicated then involuntary intoxication could not be an offence
Involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences
Hardie:
The court of appeal quashed conviction as the defendant had taken the drug before he thought it would calm him down- normal effect of Valium. So the defendant had not been reckless and the defence automatism should have been left to the jury to consider.