Intoxication

Question 1

What is the defence of intoxication?

Answer 1

Only works as a defence if it negates D’s mens rea.

Question 2

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 2

D chooses to take an intoxicating substance (including knowing effects of prescription drugs).

Question 3

What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 3

D is unaware they are taking an intoxicating substance.

Question 4

Case showing intoxication still voluntary even if strength unknown?

Answer 4

R v Allen – homemade wine; intoxication still voluntary.

Question 5

Case explaining involuntary intoxication?

Answer 5

R v Hardie – took Valium; unaware of effects.

Question 6

What are specific intent crimes?

Answer 6

Require intention (direct/oblique).
Examples: murder, s18 GBH, theft, robbery.

Question 7

What are basic intent crimes?

Answer 7

Require recklessness.
Examples: assault, battery, s47 ABH.

Question 8

Which case defines recklessness?

Answer 8

R v Cunningham – realise risk and go ahead anyway.

Question 9

Key rule for voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes?

Answer 9

Voluntary intoxication is NOT a defence.

Question 10

Case confirming voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent crimes?

Answer 10

DPP v Majewski – intoxication itself is reckless.

Question 11

Rule for voluntary intoxication and specific intent crimes?

Answer 11

May be a defence if intoxication prevents formation of mens rea.

Question 12

Case example of intoxication preventing specific intent?

Answer 12

R v Lipman – LSD; thought victim was a snake.

Question 13

Case confirming drunken intent is still intent?

Answer 13

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher – drank for courage.

Question 14

Rule for involuntary intoxication?

Answer 14

If D still has mens rea, defence fails.

Question 15

Case showing involuntary intoxication but still liable if MR present?

Answer 15

R v Kingston – drugged paedophile still had intent.

Question 16

Evaluation issue with intoxication and mistakes?

Answer 16

Lipman allows mistakes while intoxicated but R v O’Grady rejects them – inconsistent.