SB: MCD: Intoxication

Question 1

Define intoxication

Answer 1

A defendant is so intoxicated that they are incapable of forming the MR for the offence. The success of the defence will depend on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and if its a specific or basic intent offence.

Question 2

Explain specific intent offences

Answer 2

Those which are satisfied only through intention alone.
For example: Murder, S18 GBH, Theft and or Robbery

Question 3

Explain basic intent offences

Answer 3

Those which are satisfied by either intention or recklessness
For example: Manslaughter, assault, battery, S 20 GBH and ABH

Question 4

Explain Intoxicated state

Answer 4

D must be so intoxicated that they are unable to form the MR of the offence. This can be through consumption of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances.

Question 5

Explain Voluntary intoxication and specific intent (VI + SI)

Answer 5

Where a D commits a crime of specific intent then it will be successful as they are too intoxicated to form the MR
(DPP V Beard 1920)

Question 6

Explain the legal principle from DPP v Beard

Answer 6

Held: D cannot be convicted of specific intent offence where they are too drunk to form the MR

Question 7

(VI + SI) Explain Drunken intent

Answer 7

Where D has formed the MR then Drunken intent is still intent.
In R v Sheehan + Moore courts held that drunken intent was still intent

Question 8

(VI + SI) Explain Dutch Courage

Answer 8

Where D Drinks to obtain courage to commit an offence they may not rely on the defence.
(AG for NI v Gallagher) {1963}

Question 9

Explain the legal principle for AG for NI v Gallagher {1963}

Answer 9

Becoming intoxicated to carry out the offence (Dutch courage) will prevent the offence.

Question 10

Explain Voluntary intoxication and basic intent (VI + BI)

Answer 10

D wont be able to rely on intoxication where they commit a basic intent offence because they are regarded as reckless for becoming intoxicated which satisfies MR
(R v Majewski) {1977}

Question 11

Explain the legal principle for R v Majewski

Answer 11

Becoming intoxicated was reckless in itself, which is enough for the MR for basic intent offences

Question 12

(VI + BI) Explain Mental disorder

Answer 12

Where D is affected by a mental disorder due to previous intoxication then the defence is available
(R v Harris) {2013}

Question 13

Explain the legal principle for R v Harris

Answer 13

Where D is suffering from a mental disorder because of a previous disorder because of a previous intoxication, this can be used as a defence.

Question 14

Explain Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 14

Where D has been spiked or a prescribed drug has an unexpected consequence. This can be a defence to both specific and basic intent offences. However where D forms the intention before intoxicate they may be liable still. (R v Kingston) {1994}

Question 15

Explain the legal principle from R v Kingston

Answer 15

The D had formed the MR Regardless of the intoxication (which wasn’t his fault) so could not use the defence

Question 16

Explain Intoxicated mistake

Answer 16

Where D is mistaken about a fact then follows the ordinary rules of intoxication if the mistake means D can’t form the MR they can use the defence.

If the mistake is about the force needed in self defence then intoxication will not be defence

(R v Lipman) {1970}
(Jaggard v Dickinson) {1980}

Question 17

Explain the legal principle from R v Lipman {1970}

Answer 17

The D will only have a defence to specific intent offences. Liability will be reduced to basic intent alternative.

Question 18

Explain the legal principle from R v Jaggard v Dickinson {1980}

Answer 18

Where the D believes that the V would have consented then the defence is available.