HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • intoxication
    • legal principle v public policy
      • intoxication isn't a true defence BUT is a means of putting doubt into the juries head as to whether d formed mens rea
        • application of legal principle would mean many being acquitted of offences as their drunk
          • public policy would mean opposite as this is based on protection of the public and encourage good behaviour
    • leading case
      • majewski
        • d went on drink + drugs marathon and got involved in pub brawls etc
        • defnece was intoxication and claimed his intoxication prevented foresight of consequence
          • trial judge directed jury to ignore effects of drinks and if they were satisfied he would have had mens rea
    • evidential burden
      • d is required to provide evidence of intoxication
        • R v Groark
      • types of intoxicants
        • alcohol, illegal and prescribed drugs; legal highs etc.
      • defence to all crimes of specific intent were drink and drugs taken involuntary and crimes were intoxicants taken voluntary but in course of medical treatment
    • basic and specific intent
      • specific intent crimes
        • murder, wounding with intent, gbh with intent, theft burglary, robbery; attempts
          • majewski can be pleaded for specific intent if successful may lessen the offence
      • basic intent crimes
        • manslaughter, ****, wounding, inflicting gbh, abh, assault and battery and criminal damage
          • not avalible for basic intent
            • as seen in lipman and fotheringham
    • voluntary intoxication
      • were d has chosen to  take intoxicating substances it may also occur were d knows the effect of a prescribed drug will make them intoxicated
      • at one point wasnt casider a defence
        • as seen in DPP v Beard
          • d may still be very drunk and form the mens rea as in R v Sheehan
            • drunken intent is nether the less an intent
              • R v Heard
      • voluntary intox and basic intent
        • isnt a defemce
          • lipman and fotheringham
    • involuntary intoxication
      • majewski rules don't apply
      • this would be were somone claims their drink was spiked
        • R v Kingston
        • R v Allen
      • not automatically acquitted
        • but
          • can introduce defence of intoxication for specific and basic intent crimes
      • drugs taken under prescription
        • R v Bailey
      • drugs that usually have sopheric effect
        • R v Hardie
    • Dutch Courage
      • ag for northern ireland v gallager
    • intoxication and defences
      • cant use mistake/self defence
        • R v O'grady
      • insanity were rules apply
        • DPP v Beard, Gallager
      • automatism except were self induced
        • Lipman, Sulivan
      • diminished responsability
        • R v Tandy indicated certain circumstances, R v Dietschmann


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »