Intoxication (General defences - Core principles of criminal liability)

Question 1

In criminal law, intoxication may provide a defence to which category of offences?

Answer 1

Crimes of specific intent—those which require an actual intent to commit the offence and cannot be committed recklessly.

Question 2

Name two offences typically classified as crimes of specific intent.

Answer 2

Murder, Section 18 wounding with intent,

Question 3

What must a defendant show for intoxication to be a successful defence to a specific intent crime?

Answer 3

That they were so intoxicated that they could not form the necessary intent to commit the offence.

Question 4

Is voluntary intoxication a defence to crimes of basic intent?

Answer 4

No, because these offences can be committed recklessly, and recklessness is not negated by voluntary intoxication.

Question 5

Does forming an intent while drunk or high invalidate mens rea?

Answer 5

No. A “drunken intent is still an intent”—if the defendant formed intent while intoxicated, the defence fails.

Question 6

How do the courts treat intoxication that merely lowers inhibitions rather than removing intent?

Answer 6

It does not provide a defence; if the defendant retains the ability to form intent, they are still criminally liable.

Question 7

Why is it rare for intoxication to succeed as a full defence?

Answer 7

Because it is difficult to prove that the defendant was so intoxicated they could not form the intent required for a specific intent offence.

Question 8

In what situation could intoxication potentially succeed as a defence to murder?

Answer 8

If the defendant was so drunk or drugged that they lacked the capacity to form the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.