intoxication

Created by: Hayley Petts
Created on: 04-06-14 22:30

View mindmap

Intoxication
- definition
  - intoxication include alcohol, drugs and other substances
  - whether the defendant is guilty or not depends on:
    - whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
    - whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent
- voluntary intoxication
  - where the D choose to take an intoxicating substance
  - can also occur when D knows that the effects of a prescribed drug will make him intoxicated
  - specific intent offences
    - if D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence, then he is not guilty
      - DPP v Beard (1920) - raised intoxication to murder charge
        Lord Birkenhead said D must be incapable of forming mens rea necessary for offence
      - Sheehan and Moore (1975) - S and M killed tramp when very drunk and set fire to him
        no mens rea so not convicted of murder
        
        found guilty of manslaughter as that is a basic intent offence
    - where D has the necessary mens rea, despite of his intoxicated state, then he is guilty of the offence
    - drunken intent is still an intent
      - AG for northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) - decided to kill wife, so bought knife and whisky and decide to drink some before killing her
        conviction upheld as mens rea formed before intoxication
  - basic intent offences
    - intoxication not available for basic intent
      - intoxicated ins considered a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute necessary mens rea
    - DPP v Majewski (1977) - extremely intoxicated and attacked pub, people in it and police arresting him
      - s47 and assaulting police officer in execution of duty upheld by HL as D's recklessness result of intoxication
- involuntary intoxication
  - D does not know that they have taken an intoxicating substance
    - soft drink has been spiked
  - also covers situations where prescribed drugs have had unexpected effect making D intoxicated
  - no defence if D has the necessary mens rea at the time of the offence
    - Kingston (1994) - known *********, given drugged coffee by blackmailer and photographed abusing sleeping teenage boy
      - upheld convictions as had mens rea for offence
- intoxicated mistake
  - defence exists if the mistake prevents D having mens rea for a specific intent offence
  - no defence if mistake prevents D having mens rea for basic intent offence
    - Lipman (1970) - D and gf took LSD and fell asleep. when L woke he had killed gf mistaking her for a snake
      - conviction for manslaughter upheld
      - did not have specific intention for murder as he thought he was killing a snake
  - s76(5) - CJIA 2008
    - a mistaken belief caused through voluntary intoxication cannot give rise to self-defence, defence of another or prevent of crime
    - O'Grady (1987) - O and friend drinking heavily and fell asleep. O woke to find being so so hit friend with glass ashtray. next morning friend dead
      - convicted of manslaughter as intoxication no defence to basic intent crimes
    - Hatton (2005) - D very drunk and went back to falt with man. next morning man dead with sledgehammer injuries.
      - D said remembered defending self against attack
      - CA held that drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self defence was not a defence
  - S.5 Criminal Damange Act 1971
    - creates a defence based on an honest belief that person to whom the property belonged to would have consented to the damage had they known about it
      - even whee the mistake is induced by intoxication
    - Jaggard v Dickinson (1980) - drunk and went to friend's house but out so D broke window to enter believing friend would consent to it. D broke into wrong house
      - conviction quashed by DC QBD based on s5 CDA 1971

Get Revising

intoxication

Comments

Similar Law resources: