Intoxication

basics on intoxication

Involuntary Intoxication (Hardie)

drugged or consumes spiked drink

takes drugs that were prescribed to them, not recklessly (only for medical reasons, not recreational) and suffers an 'adverse reaction'

takes medical non-dangerus drugs (ibuprofen/ peniclin/ insulin) in a non-reckless way and still suffers an 'Adverse Reaction'

Voluntary Intoxication

chooses to recklessly take intoxicants/ medical drugs that were or weren't prescribed to them/ recklessly consuming illegal drugs and alcohol

if the def. knows whats going to happen when consuming the medical drug but underestmiates the strength of it then they're still liable for Voluntary Intoxication (Allen)

their are two different types of intent for VOLUNTARY Intoxication

basic intent - no intention for a crime but is reckless (s.20 GBH (majewski) / assault (majewski)/ Rape (Woods) ect.) NO DEFENCE (Beard, Majewski)

specifc intent - any crime that requires intention (s.18 GBH (Brown & Stratton)/ Murder (Lipman)) DEFENCE (Beard, Majewski)

Involuntary Intoxication (further complications and detail)

It was considered that involuntary intoxication could be an outright defence to a criminal charge (Pearson)

UNTIL the case of (Kingston) where a man was spiked and then committed an indecent assault on a young boy which he had the MR for. he argued he could normally control his 'urges'. He was convicted as he had the MR despite being involuntarily intoxicted.

Voluntary Intoxication (further detail)

if the def. has voluntarily put themselves in the position of being intoxicated to where they are not capable of forming the MR of the crime, the law is more ristricetd in these cases.

voluntary intoxication is split into 2 categories Basic intent and Specific Intent which was drawn up in the case (Beard) and affirmed in the case (Majewski)

there has been conflicting outputs as to the meaning of these terms as the judge in (Caldwell) used different meanings of the terms basic and specific intent - this is called Dicta

the explanation does not accurately cover the offences which have been categorised as either basic intent crimes or specific intent crimes.(Heard)

other factors affecting related to intoxication

Dutch courage - Where a person forms the intention to commit a crime and then drinks in order to enable them to carryout the crime, they can not claim intoxication as it prevented them from forming the MR (Gallagher)

Mistake - Drunken mistakes are generally no defence to crimes of basic intent (Fotheringham)

however, where a statute provides a limited defence based on a genuine belief, the mistake may be relied on where the mistake was done by voluntary intoxication (Dickinson)

Self Defence - Where a defendant is labouring under a mistaken belief that they are under attack and acting in self-defence, they can not rely on such mistaken belief where it was induced by voluntary intoxication (O'Grady) can be both basic and specific intent crimes.