Intoxication

Question 1

Involuntary intoxication will be a total defence even if the defendant had the requisite MR. True or false?

Answer 1

False. If the defendant had the MR, intoxication is irrelevant.

Question 2

Involuntary intoxication will be a defence if the defendant did not havethe requisite MR. True or false?

Answer 2

True

Question 3

If a crime is specific intent, intoxication may be a defence if the requisite MR is not present. If a crime is basic intent, intoxication will not be a defence. Which case?

Answer 3

R v Majewski

Question 4

What are the two exceptions to the rule in R v Majewski?

Answer 4

1. R v Heard- in which it was found that intoxication will not be a defence to the specific intent crime of rape.
2. Jaggard v Dickinson- in which it was found that intoxication could be a defence to the basic intent crime of criminal damage.