Intoxication

Question 1

Who is Philip Lang?

Answer 1

• Urinated on a war memorial but did not remember what he had done
• Received a community order

Question 2

What public policies concern alcohol use?

Answer 2

• Health concerns (15000)
• Economic cost (£3.5 billion a year on NHS)
• Public service burdens

Question 3

what is significant about drunken MR?

Answer 3

• Its still MR

Question 4

Beard 1920

Answer 4

• Capacity was the issue so defence was only available if D was incapable of forming an MR
• Has now been overruled as intent is now the relevant issue to consider

Question 5

Soolkal 1999

Answer 5

• No requirement for D to know what they are doing
• Only where D is so effected by drink so he cannot know what he is doing or have foreseen it had he been sober could intoxication be disputed.

Question 6

Kingston 1994

Answer 6

• D was a paedophile who had never acted upon desired.
• A person who knew this about him made him commit child sex offences by spiking his drink
• Court rules he formed the intent and therefore he was unsuccessful.

Question 7

Majewski v dpp 1977

Answer 7

• Brawl in a pub after D had taken drinks and drugs
• he attacked arresting officers
• kicked the inspector in the cell the next day
• Just were told to ignore the fact of intoxication
• This case created created specific and basic intent
• Appeal unsuccessful as his was basic intent committed recklessly

Question 8

What does specific intent require?

Answer 8

• Proof of intent rather than mere recklessness

Question 9

Is there an agreed definition of basic and specific intent?

Answer 9

• No

Question 10

Heard 2008

Answer 10

• Caldwell standard of specific intent was rejected
• Hughes LJ said ‘specific intent crimes are those that require proof of purposive intention’
• Heard took out penis while drunk and wiped it on a police officer thigh and claimed he couldn’t remember doing it.
• COA said it was basic intent so guilty

Question 11

Lipman 1970

Answer 11

• Took LSD (not a hard violence agression drug)
• He thought he was fighting snakes but instead he was cramming bed sheets down a girls throat
• Convicted of manslaughter with basic intent
• Follows same rules as voluntary intoxication

Question 12

Hardie 1985

Answer 12

• D appealed conviction for damaging property with intent to endanger life when he took out of date Valium to calm his nerves
• He set fire to a wardrobe
• TJ told jury to ignore intoxication but COA rules drug was a sedative and D was not reckless so conviction was overturned

Question 13

Jaggard v Dickinson 1981

Answer 13

• D found not guilty of criminal damage where a voluntary intoxicated mistake was made as to the ownership so the D’s mistake must be viewed subjectively
• He thought the property belonged to a friend

Question 14

Maggee v CPS

Answer 14

• She failed to stop at an accident she caused because she was VI and did not realise there even was an accident
• This case restricted the Jaggard principle

Question 15

How narrow is the defence of intoxication and how often is it used?

Answer 15

• Very narrow offence

- Used very rarely