Capacity Defences - intoxication (done) Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is intoxication?
Intoxication is both excessive drinking and various forms of drug taking
What are basic intent offences?
Basic intent offences are those where subjective recklessness is sufficient for the men’s Rea e.g assault, battery, involuntary manslaughter
What are specific intent offences?
Specific intent offences are those that require specific intention for their men’s Rea e.g murder
What is the order for an application of intoxication? (5)
1) Introduce the defence
2) Explain the distinction between voluntary and involuntary and apply
3) Explain the distinction between specific intent and basic intent offences and apply
4) Discuss how the law applies in these circumstances by reference to the scenario facts
5) Clearly conclude by stating what affect the defence is likely to have based upon the facts presented
What is voluntary intoxication?
Where D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance e.g alcohol or illegal drugs
What is involuntary intoxication?
Where D can prove that he was intoxicated against his wishes or without his knowledge e.g his drink was spiked
What happens with voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes and why?
If the offence is one of basic intent then intoxication cannot be used as a defence if it was voluntary. This is because becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute the men’s rea.
What case is used for voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences?
DPP v Majewski (1976)
What is the exception to voluntary intoxication for a basic intent crimes not being allowed as a defence? (case)
Richardson v Irwin (1998) establishes that if there wouldn’t have been a risk when sober then it won’t be a risk just because D is drunk.
Therefore the jury consider whether D would have realised the risk had he not been intoxicated.
What happens with voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?
Voluntary intoxication can negate the men’s Rea for a specific intent crimes. If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the men’s Rea (specific intent) he will not be guilty
What case is used for voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?
Lipman (1970)
What can happen to the defence if D is voluntarily intoxicated and commits a specific intent crimes but cannot fulfill the men’s Rea?
Liability could be constructed for an alternate crime which moves it from a specific intent crimes to a basic intent crime.
What is the exception to the rules surrounding voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes? (Case)
If the men’s Rea is formed before D was intoxicated then they would have the MR for a specific intent crimes (Gallagher 1963)
Can involuntary intoxication be used as a defence for specific and basic intent crimes and why? (Case)
Yes as they were not reckless as the intoxication was not voluntary (Pearson 1835)
What test is used to establish if D can use involuntary intoxication as a defence for specific or basic intent crimes?
The test was established in the case of Kingston (1994) and asks if D had the necessary MR when he committed the offence? This even applies is without the intoxication D would have not committed the offence as:
“a drugged intent is still an intent”
