Intoxication

Question 1

R v Allen 1988

Answer 1

D made and then drank homemade wine, witha greater then expected effect upon him, he the committed several sexual assaults. He claimed due to his misjudgement his intoxication was involuntary
Court held as long as D is aware they are ingesting an intoxicant, its voluntary

Question 2

Specific Intent Crimes

Answer 2

Partial Defence if Voluntary intoxication as does not form the requsite Mens Rea
Full Defence for Involuntary intoxication

Question 3

R v Lipman

Answer 3

D voluntary took LSD and as a result while hallucinating he killed his gf by cramming bedsheets down her throat he belvied she was a snake from the centre of the earth attacking him
Coiurt held that he was not able to form the requsite Mens Rea - Guilty of Manslaughter

Question 4

Basic Intent Crimes

Answer 4

Under R v Majewski if Mens rea of offence inlcudes ‘Recklessness’ D will have satisfied this if voluntary intoxicated.
If involuntary then full defence

Question 5

R v Majewski

Answer 5

D voluntaryily took a substanital amount of drugs, he got into a fight leading to a charge of ABH and Assaulting a constable,
As both are basic intent crimes - Court dissmissed defence of intoxication - Recklessness constituetd the mens rea

Question 6

R v Gallagher

Answer 6

D planned to kill his wife, to go through with it he drunk a whole bottle of whiskey as a means of dutch courage
Court held as he had the Mens Rea prior to the drinking and used intoxixation as a measn of courage, they are not entitled to a defnec of intoxication

Question 7

Involuntary intoxication - Justice Park

Answer 7

“Volunatary Drunkeness is no excuse for a crime, if a party is made drunk by stratagem or fraud of another, he is not responsible”

Question 8

R v Hardie 1985

Answer 8

D took out of date valium as a sedative, his adverse reaction to this he set fire to his partners wardobe and was convicted of arson
Upon Appeal court held consumptioj of non-dangerous drugs would amount to involuntary intoxication unless the consumption was recklessness.

Question 9

R v Kingston

Answer 9

D’s buissness rivals spiked his drink, and put himself in a postion to commint a sexual offence on a minor, in order to blackmail him, He argued his paedophillia was supressed unitl the involuntary intoxication.
Court held D was guilty as he admitted he was intentning to commi the assault, therefore he still had the mens rea