Defences: Intoxication Flashcards
Who is the burden of proof on?
The prosecution.
What does the prosecution have to disprove?
That D was intoxicated.
What does the prosecution have to prove?
That D has the mens rea for the crime.
What does D claim by using this defence?
That he was so intoxicated through excessive alcohol/drug use that he did not have the mens rea for the crime.
What distinctions are made?
- Voluntary versus involuntary intoxication.
- Specific intent versus basic intent.
What is voluntary intoxication?
Where D chooses to become intoxicated.
What is involuntary intoxication?
Where D either:
- Has no choice. OR
- Is unaware they have consumed alcohol/drugs.
What was held in R v Allen?
Underestimating the strength of alcohol is not involuntary intoxication.
What are specific intent crimes?
Where the mens rea is intent only.
What are basic intent crimes?
Where the mens rea is intent or recklessness.
What happens if the intoxication is voluntary?
- The defence will reduce a specific intent crime to a basic intent crime.
- D is acquitted if it’s an attempted crime as there’s no lesser offence.
What was held in R v Majewski?
Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent crimes as becoming intoxicated is being reckless.
What crimes can involuntary intoxication be used as a full defence for?
- Specific intent crimes.
- Basic intent crimes.
