Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Defence of Intoxication (Voluntary intoxication Where D has chosen to…
Defence of Intoxication
Can D use defence?
Was intoxication voluntary or involuntary? And;
Is the offence charged one of specific or basic intent?
Distinction made in DPP v MAJEWSKI
Specific intent
Mens rea = intent only
Basic intent
Mens rea = intent/recklessness
Voluntary intoxication
Where D has chosen to take intoxicating substance
Where voluntarily intoxicated D will have
defence to specific intent provided so intoxicated hasn't formed mens rea
SHEEHAN AND MOORE
Where D has mens rea despite voluntary intoxication then guilty for specific intent. Intoxication doesn't provide defence.
A drunken intent is still an intent
GALLAGHER
If offence is basic intent, voluntary intoxication isn't a defence. D is reckless in getting intoxicated so has the mens rea for basic intent
DPP v MAJEWSKI
Involuntary intoxication
Where D didn't know he was taking an intoxicating substance
If D has mens rea at the time, involuntary intoxication won't provide defence
KINGSTON
Where D didn't have mens rea due to involuntary intoxication - can't be guilty of specific or basic intent
HARDIE