Intoxication

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Rebeka188
  • Created on: 13-04-16 00:38
View mindmap
  • Intoxication
    • Covers intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances 
      • not a true defence, raises evidence to substantiate the claim that D did not form the mens rea for the offence
    • 1) Was intoxication voluntary or involuntary? 
      • involuntary intoxication 
        • D didn't know he was taking intoxicating substance , taken under medical supervision 
      • voluntary intoxication 
        • Majevski: 'the intoxication of a person which he takes otherwise than properly for a medicinal purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant
          • Majevski: 'self induced intoxication is no defence to a crim in which recklessness in enough to constitute the mens res
        • can negate the mens rea in the specific intent crimes
    • 2) Is offence one of SPECIFIC OR BASIC Intent? 
      •  Specific intent offences - Murder + s18 OAPA 
        • basic intent: assault, rape, manslaughter(Lipman), criminal damage
    • irrelevant in crimes of negligence or strict liability
      • Blakey v Sutton: spiked drink drink driving
        • yes in automatism: King (even if strict liability)
          • involuntary counts as an external trigger for purposes of automatism, voluntary as prior fault
  • voluntary intoxication 
    • Majevski: 'the intoxication of a person which he takes otherwise than properly for a medicinal purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant
      • Majevski: 'self induced intoxication is no defence to a crim in which recklessness in enough to constitute the mens res
    • can negate the mens rea in the specific intent crimes
  • murder: Beard
    • attempt: Durante
      • theft: Ruse v Read
        • GBH with intent
          • s.18 OAPA: Maekin
  • secretly administered to A without his knowledge
    • Kingston(HL): if mens rea is present D is guilty even though he would not have committed the offence if sober - it is for the jury to decide, defence is available
  • intoxicated mistakes as to a defence (duress, self defence) cannot be relied upon even for crimes of specific intent
    • O'Grady: murder - self defence as to manslaughter (not able to rely on it as he was intoxicated)
    • O'Conor: self defence as to murder, mistake cuz intoxicated - not able to raise evidence
    • Criminal Damage Act: s 5(2): exception!: defence is you think he would consent, irrespective of whether belief was justified
    • s.76(4)(b): D may not rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all criminal resources »