intoxication defence Flashcards
(13 cards)
definition and case?
where D has taken an intoxicating substance or knows the effect of taking a prescribed drug will make them intoxicated
R v Coley
what can intoxication do to crimes of specific intent?
negate mens rea
APART FROM THEFT
principle from Gallagher?
defence is invalid if intoxication used for dutch courage
principle from Majewski?
no defence for crimes of basic intent
what are the two types of intoxication
voluntary and involuntary
VI - principle from Sheehan and Moore?
asks whether, because of the intoxication, the D did not form the intent, irrespective of whether he was capable of doing so
VI - principle from R v Lipman?
VI is not a defence for crimes of basic intent so when D is convicted of both specific and basic intent crimes, even in the absence of MR for specific intent they can still be charged with the lesser basic intent crime (basic intent alternative)
VI - explain dutch courage and VI with a case
if prosecution can prove that the D had the MR of a specific intent crime before they became intoxicated the defence will fail
AG for NI v Gallagher
what are specific and basic intent crimes?
specific intent - D aims to achieve a particular outcome therefore needing MR
basic intent - recklessness is sufficient
what type of defence is involuntary intoxication?
complete defence
IVI - principle from R v Hardie?
IVI can apply when prescribed medication is taken as directed and has an unpredictable effect
IVI - principle from R v Kingston?
IVI can apply where D doesn’t know they are taking an intoxicating substance e.g. laced drinks
IVI - principle from R v O’Grady?
intoxicated mistakes (IM) can occur in SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES ONLY where D makes an IM therefore cannot form necessary MR
- if IM is about e.g. amount of force needed NO DEFENCE
