intoxication

Question 1

why is intoxication a defence?

Answer 1

someone may be so intoxicated they cannot form the mens rea
-split into voluntary and involuntary

Question 2

how does voluntary intoxication become a defence?

Answer 2

-CofA distinguishes between ‘dangerous’ and ‘non-dangerous’ drugs
-knowingly taking dangerous drugs equates to voluntary intoxication
-taking non-dangerous drugs may count as voluntary intoxication depending on whether or not the defendant understand their impact
-voluntary intoxication can be a complete defence to specific intent crimes, but usually isn’t for basic intent

Question 3

how does involuntary intoxication become a defence?

Answer 3

-can include being ‘spiked’ or having unexpected side effects of prescription drugs
-if d was involuntarily intoxicated and didn’t form the mens rea they’re not guilty
-if d was involuntarily intoxicated and did form the mens rea, they’re guilty

Question 4

why is intoxication not a defence to basic intent crimes?

Answer 4

because getting intoxicated is reckless

Question 5

reform proposals for intoxication

Answer 5

law commission, intoxication and criminal liability 2009
-references to specific and basic intent crimes should be abolished
-distinction between voluntary and involuntary should be retained
-should be a primary presumption the defendant was sober, and then they have to prove they weren’t
-second presumption should be that they were voluntarily intoxicated

Question 6

key cases on intoxication

Answer 6

-DPP v Beard (definition)
-DPP v Majewski (VI and basic intent)
-R v Kingston (involuntary)