Intoxication Flashcards
(12 cards)
Define intoxication
Intoxication contains involuntary and voluntary intoxication and is not a defence but can throw doubt on weather the D can form the requisite MR - DPP v Beard
Difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication
The difference between voluntary and involuntary is the voluntary is seen as the D choosing to take a substance that they know can cause intoxication and further a lapse in judgement.
Furthermore, for involuntary the D is unaware they are consuming a substance that can make them intoxicated
Voluntary intoxication
Where D chooses to take a substance, generally alcohol and/or drugs, that they know can cause intoxication.
A key case for voluntary is R V Hardie which distinguishes between the dangerous and non dangerous drugs
To satisfy intoxication the D must knowingly take a dangerous substance that would equate to intoxication
Taking non dangerous substances may equate to voluntary intoxication but depends on weather the D knows the impact it may have on them - DPP v Majewski
Involuntary intoxication
In order to satisfy involuntary intoxication the D must be unaware they are taking an intoxicating substance; e.g. being spiked
If whilst involuntarily intoxicated the D does not form the requisite MR they are not guilty however if they did they can still be found guilty - R v Kingston
Specific and basic intent crimes
Voluntary Intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes as a form of the mens rea is recklessness and getting intoxicated is a reckless course of action
If the defendant is intoxicated but still has the intent to form the mens rea they can be guilty of the offence - R v Lipan
Something to note
If the D is deemed to have formed the requisite MR before the intake of the intoxicating substance the D cannot use intoxication as a defence, also known as Dutch courage. - A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
DPP v Beard
D must be completely incapable of forming mens rea for defence to apply
DPP v Majewski
His conviction for ABH was upheld due to his recklessness in getting voluntarily intoxicated
R v Kingston
A D who forms the necessary MR, even if under the influence of drugs (including being involuntarily drugged), can still be found guilty — if they had the intent at the time of the offence.
R v Hardie
The court held that intoxication caused by prescription drugs can be used as a defence if the D was not aware of the risks of the drug
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Mens rea was formed to kill his wife before the intoxication. ‘Dutch courage’ is no defence as a drunken intent is still an intent
R v Lipan
Doubt in whether they can form requisite MR for specific intent crimes
