Intoxication

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: rachel
  • Created on: 08-06-14 11:32

Intoxication

-Will only work as a 'defence' when it removes D's mens rea.

1). Type of intoxication- In/Voluntary

2). Type of crime- Basc/Specifc

Specific intent offences- D must have intention

Basic intent offences- D can be reckless (ie involuntary manslaughter).

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent:

Lipman- D was trying to protect himself, didn't have MR for murder, convicted of UAM. Reckless in taking drugs.

Sheehan and Moore- Intoxication removed MR, convicted of UAM.

Gallagher- Had prior intent, aimed to kill wife before he drank for 'dutch courage'. If D has the required MR of the specific intent offence, he will be guilty despite the intoxicated state. Continuining act.

1 of 3

Intoxication 2

Voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes

Basic intent offences can be either intentionally/recklessly.

Majewski- Voluntarily getting intoxicated.

Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated and this can be transferred to satisfy the MR of the crime.

Involuntary intoxication and specific intent offenecs

Kingston- D still had the mens rea, intoxication did not negate it. If D has the MR of a specific intent offence, he will be guilty despite the intoxication. If the intoxication negates the MR, he will not be guilty.

Allen- He did not know the concentration of the alcohol, but still considered voluntary. Must be completely involuntary.

2 of 3

Intoxication 3

Involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences

Hardie- Did not know effects of taking valium.

When D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless about getting intoxicated. If D has not been reckless in the offence either, he will not have the MR required and will be found not guilty.

3 of 3

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »