intoxication - capacity defences

How can voluntary intoxication negate the mens rea & case example

If the defendant is so intoxicated that the mens rea for the offence is not formed, they are not guilty

DPP v Beard

What is said about basic intent offences & case example

Intoxication is not a defence as its considered reckless, and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea

DPP v Majewski

What was said in R v Pearson

If a party may be drunk by stratagem, or the fraud of another, he is not responsible

(Involuntary intoxication is a defence for basic & specific intent crimes)

2 cases that show voluntary taking of drugs but involuntary intoxication

R v Hardie

R v Allen

What is said about intoxicated mistake

It depends on what the mistake was, if it was a specific intent crime & the defendant did not have the necessary mens rea rhe defence defence is available

But not for basic intent crimes

Case that shows intoxicated mistake

R v Lipman - killed his girlfriend while on LSD & hallucinating, lacked mems rea for murder as its a specific intent crime

What was said in O’Grady & what case was this confirmed in

A defendants drunken mistake cannot be relied on for the purposes of self-defence

R v Hatton

What are 2 problems with the defence of intoxication

The decision in DPP v Majewski is that a person is reckless and therefore guilty if they get drunk, this does not comply with the principle the actus reus & mens rea of a crime must coincide

If recklessness is sufficient the defendant must be aware of the risk, this is not the case for intoxication