Law - Intoxication

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Janki
  • Created on: 10-01-15 17:47
View mindmap
  • Intoxication
    • Voluntary Intoxication
      • Specific Intent
        • Can be a partial defence, Not a full defence, reduces to a fall back offence (murder -> manslaughter, GBH S18 -> GBH S20
          • Sheehan and Moore - intoxication may be a defence so long as D was too drunk to have formed the MR (negated)
        • Not a defence if 'dutch courage'
          • Gallagher - guilty as he already formed the MR to kill before becoming self-intoxicated
      • Basic Intent
        • Intoxication is not a defence: voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR
          • Majewski - sufficient MR found, lowest level of MR for basic intent is recklessness
    • Involuntary Intoxication
      • Specific Intent
        • Can be a defence if D has no MR
          • Pearson - D not responsible if they are intoxicated by another, only if MR is negated
        • If D has MR he is guilty
          • Kingston - already had MR, drug was just a disinhibiter
      • Basic Intent
        • can be a defence
          • Hardie - defence applicable if D has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated
          • R v. Allen - not a defence to those who start drinking voluntarily but do not realise the strength of the drink
  • Intoxication is not a defence: voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR
    • Majewski - sufficient MR found, lowest level of MR for basic intent is recklessness

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »