Defences- Intoxication

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/8

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

9 Terms

1
New cards

What is the legal principle of intoxication?

intoxication can be a defence to a criminal offence only if it prevents the defendant from forming the mens rea (MR) of the crime.It is not a defence in itself, but a denial of MR due to intoxication.

2
New cards

What's the difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication?

Voluntary intoxication: D willingly consumes drugs/alcohol knowing the effects.

Involuntary intoxication: D is intoxicated without knowledge or against their will (e.g., spiked drink or unexpected side effect of prescribed drug).

3
New cards

What is a specific intent crime?

A crime that requires intention only as the MR (e.g., murder, s18 GBH, theft).🔹 Recklessness is not enough.

4
New cards

What is a basic intent crime?

A crime where recklessness is sufficient as the MR (e.g., assault, battery, s20 GBH, manslaughter).

5
New cards

What happens if someone is voluntarily intoxicated and commits a specific intent crime?

If intoxication prevents D from forming the intent, they may be acquitted.

📌 Key Case: DPP v Beard (1920) - D too drunk to form intent to rape = not guilty of murder.

BUT: If D had MR despite intoxication → guilty.

6
New cards

voluntarily intoxicated and commits a basic intent crime?

The defence will not succeed.

📌 Key Case: DPP v Majewski (1977) - voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent.➡ Being reckless by choosing to get drunk counts as the MR.

7
New cards

What if someone is involuntarily intoxicatedWhat if someone is involuntarily intoxicated

D can use the defence for both basic and specific intent crimes, if they lacked MR.

📌 Key Case: R v Kingston (1994) - even if intoxicated involuntarily, if D did have MR, he's guilty.

8
New cards

ntoxication by prescribed drugs

If D took the drug properly and suffered an unexpected side effect, this is involuntary intoxication.

📌 Key Case: R v Hardie (1985) - D took Valium (a calming drug) but became aggressive. Court said he couldn't have expected this.

9
New cards

Is the law on intoxication fair?

✅ Ensures personal responsibility

❌ Confusing distinction between basic/specific intent

❌ Harsh on people genuinely lacking MR (e.g. Kingston)🔍 Law Commission has called for reform (2015)