INTOXICATION mindmap LAW 03

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: abic1
  • Created on: 27-02-18 12:16
View mindmap
  • INTOX.
    • Defendant argues that they are lacking mens rea due to intoxication
    • Excessive drinking or drug taking
    • Specific Intent Crimes
      • Mens rea for specific intent is intention
      • If prosecution cannot prove defendant had intention due to being extremely intoxicated, charge reduced to lesser offence
      • Offences: s18 reduced to s20, murder reduced to manslaughter
    • Basic Intent Crime
      • Intoxication cannot be defence for basic intent crimes
      • Mens rea for basic intent can be committed reckless, intoxication = reckless
      • Offences: s39 assault and battery, s47 ABH, criminal damage
      • Mens rea of recklessness  is satisfied by intoxication FOTHERINGHAM
    • Voluntary Intox.
      • Basic Intent Crimes
        • Intoxication substitutes for recklessness
        • Cannot be used as defence for basic intent crimes BEARD
        • Defendants cannot rely on drunkenness to avoid liability FOTHERINGHAM
      • Specific Intent Crime
        • Can be used as a defence to specific intent crimes MAJEWSKI RULES 1977
        • Defendant could not for mens rea of intention if so heavily intoxicated
        • Reduces charge from specific intent crime to basic intent crime LIPMAN
        • If defendant had mens res before intoxication, cannot us defence GALLAGHER
        • Dutch Courage Rule is not accepted
      • Jury should consider if defendant would have reacted I n same way if sober RICHARDSON & IRWIN
      • Drunken mistake that victim was consenting to horseplay = accepted defence RICHARDSON & IRWIN
      • Genuinely but mistakenly believed victim was consenting = defence assault and battery AITKEN and JONES
    • Involuntary Intox.
      • Drink Spiked
        • Drugged intent is still intent KINGSTON
        • Intoxication negatives the mens rea = acquittal
      • Sporoific Drugs
        • Intoxication may be involuntary even if taken deliberately
        • Unexpected side effects = involuntary intox.  HARDIE
      • Drugs taken under medical prescription
        • Unexpected side effects from prescription drugs = involuntary intox so long as not reckless when taking them BAILEY
        • Could be counted as non-insane automatism

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Defences resources »