Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
INTOXICATION - Coggle Diagram
INTOXICATION
- VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION + SPECIFIC INTENT
Can remove the required mens rea. If D is so intoxicated he hasn't formed mens rea for an offence then he isn't guilty
Sheehan and Moore- D's very drunk; poured petrol over tramp and set light to him. D was too drunk to have any intention to kill or cause GBH with intent
R v Lipman- D and his girlfriend took LSD before going to bed and the D woke up to his girlfriend strangled to death with bed sheets and he thought she was a snake. Couldn't be charged with murder as he couldn't form the specific intent, but was charged with basic intent offence of manslaughter
Lord Birkenhead in DPP v Beard- D contested to a murder charge as he was too drunk to form the mens rea for murder. "If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming intent required. He couldn't be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved"
Where D has necessary mens rea despite his intoxication then he is guilty of the offence. A drunken intent is still an intent- Ag For N.Ireland v Gallagher- D decided to kill his wife, he bought a knife to kill her and a bottle of whiskey. He drank a large amount and killed her- the conviction for murder was upheld
-
TEST- Did the D have the necessary mens rea when committing the offence? If yes- guilty, no defence even if he wouldn't have committed the offence without the intoxicating lowering his resistance to committing the offence
Kingston- D's coffee was drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him. D had a history of irresistible urges towards young boys. D did abuse a 15 year old boy and was photographed by the blackmailer. He had formed the mens rea for the offence
Hardie- D took Valium not knowing the side effects, he set fire to his living room where his girlfriend and daughter was . Court accepted that this behaviour wasn't a normal side effect
R v Allen- Consumed some homemade wine, he committed several sexual assaults and argued that he hadn't voluntarily placed himself in that position. The courts disagreed and found him guilty
- VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION + BASIC INTENT
If offence charged is one of basic intent, then intoxication is not a defence
Becoming voluntary intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute to the mens rea
DPP v Majewski- D took alcohol and drugs and attacked people in a pub and the police who tried to arrest him
Fotherington- D had been out drinking and when he came home he climbed into bed with the babysitter as he though she was his wife, rape is a crime of basic intent and so his drunken mistake couldn't be relied on in his defence
-
Lesser offences- Where a D was intoxicated for a specific intent crime, that has no basic intent equivalent, he will be charged with no offence
Unfair application- Where a D has become involuntary intoxicated, he can still be found guilty if it can be proved he formed te required mens rea (R v Kingston)
Public policy- There needs to be a balance between protecting V's and allowing a defence on the grounds of public policy- intoxication can't be used as an excuse for criminal behaviour
Alcohol, drugs and other substances
-
This depends on whether intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent
D can't rely on voluntary intoxication in relation to a crime of specific intent if he acted under a mistaken belief in the need for self defence
R v O'Grady- D and 2 friends went out drinking and on their way back home the D and V got into a fight. When D woke up he found V dead from the injuries
R v Hatton- D had drank a lot of alcohol. D and V went back to D's flat. In the morning D found V with injuries caused by a sledgehammer, D said he couldn't remember what happened but V tried to attack him
BASIC- Where the mens rea for a crime is recklessness or negligence, or a crime of strict liability
-