Intoxication 1B

Question 1

When does intoxication work?

Answer 1

When it negates D’s mens rea.

Question 2

What are the 2 things to work out if D’s MR has been negated?

Answer 2

Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
Is the offence D is charged with a basic or specific intent offence?

Question 3

What is Voluntary intoxication?

Answer 3

Where D has decided to take an intoxicating substance.

Question 4

In what other situation would D be regarded as voluntarily intoxicated?

Answer 4

Where he knows that the effect of a legal/prescribed drug will make him intoxicated.

Question 5

What is Involuntary intoxication?

Answer 5

Where D is not aware that he is taking an intoxicating substance.

Question 6

What does R v Allen say?

Answer 6

intoxication must be completely involuntary to be involuntary intoxication.

Question 7

If D knows he is taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of its strength, what is this treated as?

Answer 7

VOLUNTARY intoxication

Question 8

What does Hardie say?

Answer 8

If D knows he is taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of the effects it will have, this will be trated as involuntary intoxication.

Question 9

What are the specific intent crimes?

Answer 9

They must have intention
Murder
s18
Theft
Robbery
9(1)(a) Burglary
9(1)(b) with theft or s18 GBH as the crime
Attempt

Question 10

What are the basic intent crimes?

Answer 10

They only need recklessness
Assault
Battery
s47
s20
UAM
GNM
9(1)(b) with s20 GBH as the crime

Question 11

Can Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences be a defence?

Answer 11

NEVER

Question 12

What case is used for Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences?

Answer 12

DPP v Majewski

Question 13

What does DPP v Majewski say?

Answer 13

Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated, therefore will have sufficient MR.

Question 14

What case is used for voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?

Answer 14

Lipman

Question 15

What does Lipman say?

Answer 15

D will not be convicted of a specific intent crime (SIC) if the intoxication prevents him from forming the MR for the SIC.

Question 16

If D is not found guilty of a SIC does he walk free?

Answer 16

Not always - if there is a related basic intent crime then they may be found guilty of that.
for example:
Murder -> UAM
S18 -> s20
However:
Theft has no related BIC so they walk free.

Question 17

What does Gallagher say?

Answer 17

Drunken intent is still intent.

Question 18

What case is used for Involuntary Intoxication and SICs?

Answer 18

Kingston

Question 19

What does Kingston say?

Answer 19

Drugged intent is still intent.

Question 20

What case is used for Involuntary intoxication and BICs?

Answer 20

Hardie

Question 21

What does Hardie say?

Answer 21

When D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated therefore does not have the MR of the BIC and will not be found guilty.

Question 22

What does R v O’Grady say?

Answer 22

D can’t make drunken mistakes about defending himself and have a defence.

Question 23

Eval point 1: Self defence

Answer 23

P-D cannot make drunken mistakes about self defence.
Good- Justified as policy decision and deterrent. Makes sure people are extra careful when being intoxicated and stops people having an excuse for violence.
Bad- Inconsistency creates complexity and injustice. D allowed to make mistakes and kill in self defence (Gladstone Williams) and D is allowed to make mistakes and kill in intox (Lipman), but intoxed mistake about self defence not allowed (O’Grady), even if consequence is less serious than killing.
L- link to question.

Question 24

Eval point 2: Majewski

Answer 24

P- Majewski rule goes against coincidence + enables D to be guilty of ANY BIC even if not reckless for that consequence.
Bad- D is considered as having recklessness for any BIC, even if he commits an AR a while after drinking without reallyy knowing what he was doing.
Good- Could argue events from drinking until crime are a single transaction like Thabo-Meli, and this does encourage people to drink responsibly to avoid potential liability.
L- link to question

Question 25

Eval point 3: Voluntary vs Involuntary

Answer 25

P- law does not always treat voluntary differently to involuntary Bad- In Gallagher D chose to drink for "Dutch courage" whereas in Kingston D's coffee was spiked. However, both were convicted of a crime because "drunken intent is still intent". This makes the distinction between types of intox insignificant, and it seems unjust as gallagher far more blameworthy than Kingston. Good- However, if D still had the MR despite being intoxed, then the intox in gerneral is irrelevant anyway, and the distinction still serves an important purpose for BIC due to the Majewski rule. L- link to question

Question 26

Eval point 4: Confusing Concept

Answer 26

P- Involuntary can be confusing. In R v Allen, D did not know strength of alcohol but had no defence as still knew was drinking. Hardie, D took drugs that had unexpected effects. Court said could still be involuntary even though D knew was taking drugs. Good?- Law commission recognise this makes meaning of involuntary unclear. Want to get rid of Allen rule and create lots of different types of inlovuntary intox to handle different situations. would make the law more flexible and less contradictory. Bad?- Lots of different types of involuntary intox could be very confusing and may create more uncertainty tan just having one rule where it must be 100% invol. L- link to question

Question 27

Eval point 5: SIC vs BIC

Answer 27

P- difference between SIC and BIC not based on seriousness (ie theft SIC but s20 GBH is BIC) Bad- problem because even if D has a defence to things like s18 GBH, the Majewski rule makes D guilty of s20 if D was voluntarily intoxed. Whereas if D committed SIC theft, there is noo related BIC so D walks free. Seems unjust and outcome is not based on blameworthiness so much as whether the crime happened to be made as requiring intent or not. Good- However, if the distinction were based on severity, it may be hard to work out a consistent way of applying how the rules of intox work with regards to MR, as well as identifying how serious a crime must be to be "serious". This would create a lot of complexity and uncertainty. L- link to question

Question 28

Eval point 6: balance

Answer 28

P- the law of intox has to balance different considerations Good- on the one hand, it is positive for the law to dter people from getting intoxed because of the harmful health and financial effects on the individual, as well as the harm and social consequences it can cause to those around them. Bad- However, it can be hard to do this whilst also respecting people's autonomy and allow them the choice to take legal intoxing substances if they want to otherwise there is little point in such substances being legal at all. L- Link to question