intoxication

Question 1

R v Coley

Answer 1

. D can be intoxicated as a result of any intoxicant (any drug/alcohol can lead to the defence of intoxication)

Question 2

2 types

Answer 2

. voluntary intoxication- choice to drink/ drugs
. involuntary intoxication- no choice- could be spiked

Question 3

voluntary intoxication

Answer 3

. once D chooses to be intoxicated, the potency does not matter- R v Allen
. D did not form MR, not that they would have acted differently sober- R v Sheehan and Moore- a drunken intent is still intent
. Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland> Bratty guidelines:
-specific intent crimes- offences that need MR
-basic intent crimes- reckless
. DPP v Majewski- specific intent crimes drop to basic if D was reckless when they chose to get intoxicated- R v Lipman (murder>manslaughter)
. taking a substance to gain Dutch Courage (confidence) to commit crime later will not work as an intoxication defence- Gallagher v Attorney General for Northern Ireland

Question 4

involuntary intoxication

Answer 4

. D is unknowingly intoxicated or has unexpected side effects of legitimate drugs as D is not reckless- R v Bailey, R v Hardie
. if D is involuntarily intoxicated, they will have a defence for both basic + specific intent offences (Bratty)
: a drunken intent is still an intent (Sheehan and Moore)- if D forms intent as assessed by the jury, involuntary intoxication is no defence- R v Kingston

Question 5

strengths

Answer 5

. R v Allen means people take responsibility for their actions
. the exception for Dutch Courage protects the public/victim- Gallagher
. Sheehan and Moore- a drunken intent is still an intent- protects public + keeps people accountable