Intoxication

Question 1

When will intoxication work as a defence?

Answer 1

When it negates D’s MR

Question 2

What are the 2 types of intoxication?

Answer 2

• Voluntary - D chose to take intoxicating substances (if D knows the effects that prescribed substances could have, he will be voluntarily intoxicated.
• Involuntary - D was unaware of the intoxicating effects

Question 3

What are the 2 types of crime?

Answer 3

• Specific Intent Crimes - Intent must be proven

- Basic Intent Crimes - Recklessness is enough

Question 4

Discuss voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?

Answer 4

Voluntary intoxication can negate the MR for a specific intent crime.
Lipman - D will not be convicted of a specific intent crime if the intoxication prevents him from forming the MR.
Gallagher - Where D has the MR of the crime (without the intoxication) he will still be guilty. (Drunken intent is still intent).

Question 5

Discuss voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes?

Answer 5

DPP v Majewski - Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always be reckless in becoming intoxicated, which can then be transferred to the MR of the crime.

Question 6

Discuss involuntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?

Answer 6

Kingston - If D has the MR of the specific intent crime, he will be guilty of the specific intent crime. (drugged intent is still intent).
If the intoxication negates the MR, D will not be guilty.
Allen - To be regarded as involuntary intoxication, the intoxication has to be completely involuntary.

Question 7

Discuss involuntary intoxication and basic intent crimes?

Answer 7

Hardie - When D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated. If D has not been reckless in the offence either, then he will not have the MR required and be found not guilty.