intoxication
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 04-06-14 22:30
View mindmap
- Intoxication
- definition
- intoxication include alcohol, drugs and other substances
- whether the defendant is guilty or not depends on:
- whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
- whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent
- voluntary intoxication
- where the D choose to take an intoxicating substance
- can also occur when D knows that the effects of a prescribed drug will make him intoxicated
- specific intent offences
- if D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence, then he is not guilty
- DPP v Beard (1920) - raised intoxication to murder charge
- Lord Birkenhead said D must be incapable of forming mens rea necessary for offence
- Sheehan and Moore (1975) - S and M killed tramp when very drunk and set fire to him
- no mens rea so not convicted of murder
- found guilty of manslaughter as that is a basic intent offence
- DPP v Beard (1920) - raised intoxication to murder charge
- where D has the necessary mens rea, despite of his intoxicated state, then he is guilty of the offence
- drunken intent is still an intent
- AG for northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) - decided to kill wife, so bought knife and whisky and decide to drink some before killing her
- conviction upheld as mens rea formed before intoxication
- AG for northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) - decided to kill wife, so bought knife and whisky and decide to drink some before killing her
- if D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence, then he is not guilty
- basic intent offences
- intoxication not available for basic intent
- intoxicated ins considered a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute necessary mens rea
- DPP v Majewski (1977) - extremely intoxicated and attacked pub, people in it and police arresting him
- s47 and assaulting police officer in execution of duty upheld by HL as D's recklessness result of intoxication
- intoxication not available for basic intent
- involuntary intoxication
- D does not know that they have taken an intoxicating substance
- soft drink has been spiked
- also covers situations where prescribed drugs have had unexpected effect making D intoxicated
- no defence if D has the necessary mens rea at the time of the offence
- Kingston (1994) - known *********, given drugged coffee by blackmailer and photographed abusing sleeping teenage boy
- upheld convictions as had mens rea for offence
- Kingston (1994) - known *********, given drugged coffee by blackmailer and photographed abusing sleeping teenage boy
- D does not know that they have taken an intoxicating substance
- intoxicated mistake
- defence exists if the mistake prevents D having mens rea for a specific intent offence
- no defence if mistake prevents D having mens rea for basic intent offence
- Lipman (1970) - D and gf took LSD and fell asleep. when L woke he had killed gf mistaking her for a snake
- conviction for manslaughter upheld
- did not have specific intention for murder as he thought he was killing a snake
- Lipman (1970) - D and gf took LSD and fell asleep. when L woke he had killed gf mistaking her for a snake
- s76(5) - CJIA 2008
- a mistaken belief caused through voluntary intoxication cannot give rise to self-defence, defence of another or prevent of crime
- O'Grady (1987) - O and friend drinking heavily and fell asleep. O woke to find being so so hit friend with glass ashtray. next morning friend dead
- convicted of manslaughter as intoxication no defence to basic intent crimes
- Hatton (2005) - D very drunk and went back to falt with man. next morning man dead with sledgehammer injuries.
- D said remembered defending self against attack
- CA held that drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self defence was not a defence
- S.5 Criminal Damange Act 1971
- creates a defence based on an honest belief that person to whom the property belonged to would have consented to the damage had they known about it
- even whee the mistake is induced by intoxication
- Jaggard v Dickinson (1980) - drunk and went to friend's house but out so D broke window to enter believing friend would consent to it. D broke into wrong house
- conviction quashed by DC QBD based on s5 CDA 1971
- creates a defence based on an honest belief that person to whom the property belonged to would have consented to the damage had they known about it
- definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made