Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
intoxication - Coggle Diagram
intoxication
involuntary intoxication
the d does not knowingly or willingly become intoxicated or where they have an adverse reaction to a particular substance or drug
-
hardie- CA held that vallium was wholly different to drugs which are liable to cause unpredictability and aggressiveness
a distinction is made between the drugs which are commonly known to cause aggressive or dangerous behaviour and those which are not
Bailey- the CA state that there is a distinction between intoxication as a result of consuming alcohol to excess and the unexpected side effects of therapeutic substances
Ross v HM advocate- it was the LSD being put into his beer that amounted to involuntary intoxication
-
-
Allen- he had been freely drinking wine, knowing it was wine, it was therefore voluntary intoxication
-
it is the d who must raise the defence. the question as to whether the intoxication is sufficient is a question of law for the judge to decide
voluntary intoxication
-
for public policy reasons this will not normally provide a defence. it is not in the public interest to allow a defendant to be able to use intoxication as an excuse for crime
voluntary intoxication is not a defence to offences of basic intent but it can provide a defence to offences of specific intent
where an offence is one of specific intent- then provided the defendant does not form the mens rea for the crime the defence will be available
when an offence is one of basic intent the defence will not be available (majewski, beard, lipman)
specific intent crimes are those where the intention must be established as all or part of the mens rea (e.g. murder, s.18 OAPA 1861)
basic intent crimes are those where intention does not have to be proven e.g. can be committed recklessly (e.g. s47, s20, assault and battery and manslaughter)
dutch courage- if the d forms the necessary mens rea required for the offence and then gets drunk in order to form the 'dutch courage' to commit the offence, the defence will fail (r v gallagher)
drunken mistake- if the d is mistaken about a situation as a result of intoxication he cant rely on the defence of mistake even to crimes of specific intent (o'grady) as confirmed by (CA in hatton)