Intoxication

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 22-02-16 12:26
Sheehan and Moore (1975)
Where the def has the nec intention for the offence, intoxication will not provide a defence, as a drunken intent is still an offence
1 of 12
Kingston (1994)
Intoxication will never be relevant if the crime is one of strict liability because such offences do not require MR
2 of 12
DPP v Majewski (1977)
Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent offence, although it may be evidence which goes towards negating the MR in a specific intent offence
3 of 12
DPP v Majewski (1977)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: voluntarily becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct to take, thus, a voluntarily intoxicated def is automatically reckless and therefore had the MR for every basic intent crime
4 of 12
Gallacher (1963)
Lord Denning: the wickedness of the def’s mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him, coupled with the act which he intended to do and did so; Where intoxication was ‘Dutch courage’ to give him the confidence to commit the offence, it will pro
5 of 12
Richardson and Irwin (1999)
Where def is voluntarily intoxicated, it does not have to be proved that he actually had the MR, but rather, the test is whether he would have foreseen the relevant risk if he had been sober
6 of 12
Lipman (1970)
Man took LSD-thought descending to centre of Earth-killed girl with bed sheets in mouth-his intoxication could be used to demonstrate that he lacked the mens rea for murder as murder is a crime of specific intent. His intoxication could not be a defe
7 of 12
Allen (1988)
Def’s lack of awareness of the level of alcohol content in the alcoholic drink does not render the intoxication involuntary
8 of 12
Kingston (1994)
where the def does have the MR, he will be liable, even if his intoxication is involuntary and blameless
9 of 12
Hardie (1985)
(in case, man took drugs prescribed to his female partner in house)-CA: consideration must be given as to whether def’s conduct in taking the non-dangerous drugs was reckless. If def’s conduct was not reckless, he could rely on evidence of his involu
10 of 12
O’Grady (1987)
If the def mistakenly believed that his friend was attacking him, he could not rely on self-defence (in killing him) as his mistake was caused by voluntary intoxication
11 of 12
Jaggard v Dickinson (1981)
However, a def can rely on intoxication as a defence to a mistaken belief with regards to criminal damage, as s 5(2) of CDA 1971 is subjective-this case is relevant to specific defence of lawful excuse under CDA 1971, and has no wider application
12 of 12

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Intoxication will never be relevant if the crime is one of strict liability because such offences do not require MR

Back

Kingston (1994)

Card 3

Front

Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent offence, although it may be evidence which goes towards negating the MR in a specific intent offence

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Lord Elwyn-Jones: voluntarily becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct to take, thus, a voluntarily intoxicated def is automatically reckless and therefore had the MR for every basic intent crime

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Lord Denning: the wickedness of the def’s mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him, coupled with the act which he intended to do and did so; Where intoxication was ‘Dutch courage’ to give him the confidence to commit the offence, it will pro

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »