intoxication

what is intoxication

where D is under influence of alcohol, drugs, or other substances at the time of committing the offence

what does Kingston say

"Drunken intent is still intent"

what is voluntary intoxication

D takes of his own FREE WILL an intoxicating substance such as alcohol, prescribed drugs, or an illegal drug

what is involuntary intoxication

D does not know they are taking an intoxicating substance

what are examples of involuntary intoxication

- spiked drinks

- takes illegal drugs thinking its aspirin

- takes a prescribed drug with accord to instruction but drug has undesired effect

what is a basic intent crime

crimes including recklessness in the MR

what is a specific intent crime

crimes for which the MR is only intent

what is voluntary intoxication a defence for

specific intent

what is the leading case for rules on intoxication

DPP v Majewski

was Majewski allowed the defence of intoxication

no as s.47 is a basic intent offence and could be reckless to it

what does Richardson and Irwin say

defence may be available for a basic intent crime but only if the D can show that they would not have realised the risk even if sober

Can D use voluntary intoxication as a defence when committing a specific intent crime

Yes, due to the lack of MR providing there is a lesser charge avaliable

what does Lipman say in relation to voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes

voluntary intoxication could be a defence to murder if it prevented D forming the MR but cannot be a defence to manslaughter

what does AG for NI v Gallagher say in relation to voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes

if the MR for specific intent was formed prior to intoxication there will be no defence

what is involuntary intoxication a defence for

specific and basic intent crimes

what must be shown for involuntary intoxication

effect of the intoxication was such that D, as a result of intoxication, was unable to form the necessary MR

what is the leading case for involuntary intoxication

R v Kingston

why did defence fail in Kingston

D was a pedo and was likely to have committed the act even when sober as he acknowledge he wouldnt have done the act if sober acknowledging the act as wrong satisfying MR

what does R v Hardie say in relation to prescription/non-dangerous drugs

where D takes a prescription/non-dangerous drug this may be treated as involuntary intoxication if the D suffers an uncommon reaction