Intoxication

Question 1

Voluntary intoxication introduction

Answer 1

• D may be able to argue the defence of voluntary intoxication
  Majewksi rules that there is a distinction between specific and basic intent crimes.
  Specific intent crimes are intention only, whilst basic intent crimes can be committed either intentionally or recklessly

Question 2

Voluntary intoxication- specific

Answer 2

The defence is available for specific intent crimes I the D was so intoxicated that they could not form the relevant mens rea (intention)

Question 3

Voluntary intoxication- basic

Answer 3

the defence is not available as the fact that the D got voluntarily intoxicated is evidence of recklessness and the crime is complete.
- Howevever, (Richardson&Irwin) states that the defence may be available as long as the D would not have seen the risk even if they were sober.

Question 4

Voluntary intoxication side rule

Answer 4

• Side rule - Dutch courage- Gallagher rules that the defence is not available a the D had already formed the mens Rea before they became intoxicated

Question 5

Involuntary intoxication application

Answer 5

• Kingston rules that the defence is available for specific and basic intent crimes, as long as the D was so intoxicated that they could form the relevant mens Rea, as a drugged intent is still intent.

Question 6

Involuntary intoxication side rule

Answer 6

• Side rule- Unexpected side effect of a prescription drug- Defence is still available as long as the side effects are still unexpected (Hardie)