Intoxication

Question 1

whether or not the defense of intoxication is successful depends on what?

Answer 1

If the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary

Charge is specific or basic intent

Question 2

Dpp v Beard

Answer 2

Outlines the law on invol intoxication
The Defendant raped a 13 year old girl and suffocated her when he put his hand over her mouth.

Lord Birkenhead accidentally used term specific/basic intent.

held: D cannot form specific intent. Drunkenness is no defence but if the defendant was so drunk at the time of the offence he could not form the mens rea

Question 3

Sheehan v Moore

Answer 3

D threw petrol over a tramp and set him on fire whilst drunk.
held: No specific intent crime to form mens rea therefore they convicted of Arson (basic intent) in order to convict for recklessness as they couldn’t establish intent

Question 4

A-G NI gallagher

Answer 4

D killed his wife but drank before for dutch courage.
Held: Where a person forms the intention to kill and drinks in order to give themselves Dutch courage, they can not then rely on their intoxication to demonstrate they did not have the necessary mens rea.

Question 5

what are the 3 cases outlining intent

Answer 5

DPP v Beard
Sheehan v Moore
A-G NI v gallagher

Question 6

Which case outlines involuntary intoxication

Answer 6

Kingston

Question 7

Kingston

Answer 7

D was a man who had a sexual desire for children but had it under control to the point where he could completely control his complusions to not act upon them. 2 men drugged him and photographed him abusing a 13 year old boy.
Held: even though he could control his compulsions he had the mens rea before he was intoxicated

Question 8

what are the 3 cases outlining intoxicated mistake

Answer 8

Lipman
O’grady
Jeggard v Dickinson

Question 9

What is intoxication

Answer 9

Failure to form the MR due to alcohol drugs or substance

Question 10

Outline voluntary intoxication in reference to offences

Answer 10

Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to basic intent crimes
But is a defence to spesific intent crimes if D can’t form MR

Question 11

What crimes are included in spesific intent

Answer 11

S.18, theft, robbery, burglary murder and attempts

Question 12

What crimes are basic intent

Answer 12

S.20, M/S, battery ABH S.20

Question 13

Which cases have no fallback

Answer 13

Theft, robbery, burglary

Question 14

What is the burden of proof on?

Answer 14

Defendant- against article 6 rights

Question 15

What are the cases for involuntary intoxication

Answer 15

Beard
Sheehan and Moore
Lipman

Question 16

When can intoxication be a full defence

Answer 16

Where the offence is spesific intent and there is no fallback eg theft

Question 17

Which case outlines intox not available to basic intent

Answer 17

Majewski

Richardson and Irwin

Question 18

Which cases come under involuntary intoxication

Answer 18

Hardie
Allen
Kingston

Question 19

Which case outlines intoxication as a mistake

Answer 19

Fotherington s.76 CJA

Lipman
Ogrady
Hatton

Question 20

Outline the case of lipman

Answer 20

Voluntary intoxication
D shoved bed sheet down V’s throat taking LDS
Courts took away intoxication and substituted manslauter as they didn’t want the jury to risk aquittibg him

A02- we’ll why don’t they just remove the whole defence anyways

Question 21

Outline the case of Sheehan v Moore

Answer 21

Voluntary intoxication
D set fire to a tramp and died. Judge refused to let intox go to jury incase they convicted so used fallback of manslauter

Public policy

Question 22

Outline the case of Gallagher

Answer 22

Bought whisky and knife together to get Dutch currage to kill wife

Defence only occurs where they form MR after intoxication

Question 23

Outline the case of Richardson and Irwin

Answer 23

Dropped V off balcony suffering injury with consent

Question 24

Outline the case of Allen

Answer 24

Invoke intoxication - where D doesn’t know they’re taking an intoxicating substance

Made homemade wine and raped step daughter because it was too strong

No defence because the defendant was aware the effect of alcohol

Question 25

Outline the case of fotherington

Answer 25

D had sexual intercourse with 14 year old baby sitter mistaken for wife in bed.
Intoxication and mistake does not apply