Intoxication
- Created by: Rebeka188
- Created on: 13-04-16 00:38
View mindmap
- Intoxication
-
Covers
intoxication
by alcohol,
drugs or other
substances
- not a true defence, raises evidence to substantiate the claim that D did not form the mens rea for the offence
-
1) Was
intoxication
voluntary or
involuntary?
-
involuntary intoxication
- D didn't know he was taking intoxicating substance , taken under medical supervision
-
voluntary intoxication
- Majevski: 'the intoxication of a person which he takes otherwise than properly for a medicinal purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant
- Majevski: 'self induced intoxication is no defence to a crim in which recklessness in enough to constitute the mens res
- can negate the mens rea in the specific intent crimes
- Majevski: 'the intoxication of a person which he takes otherwise than properly for a medicinal purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant
-
involuntary intoxication
-
2) Is offence
one of
SPECIFIC OR
BASIC Intent?
- Specific
intent offences
- Murder +
s18 OAPA
- basic intent: assault, ****, manslaughter(Lipman), criminal damage
- Specific
intent offences
- Murder +
s18 OAPA
- irrelevant in crimes of negligence or strict liability
- Blakey v Sutton: spiked drink drink driving
- yes in automatism: King (even if strict liability)
- involuntary counts as an external trigger for purposes of automatism, voluntary as prior fault
- yes in automatism: King (even if strict liability)
- Blakey v Sutton: spiked drink drink driving
-
Covers
intoxication
by alcohol,
drugs or other
substances
-
voluntary intoxication
- Majevski: 'the intoxication of a person which he takes otherwise than properly for a medicinal purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant
- Majevski: 'self induced intoxication is no defence to a crim in which recklessness in enough to constitute the mens res
- can negate the mens rea in the specific intent crimes
- Majevski: 'the intoxication of a person which he takes otherwise than properly for a medicinal purpose (and according to medical instruction), knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant
- murder: Beard
- attempt: Durante
- theft: Ruse v Read
- GBH with intent
- s.18 OAPA: Maekin
- GBH with intent
- theft: Ruse v Read
- attempt: Durante
- secretly administered to A without his knowledge
- Kingston(HL): if mens rea is present D is guilty even though he would not have committed the offence if sober - it is for the jury to decide, defence is available
- intoxicated mistakes as to a defence (duress, self defence) cannot be relied upon even for crimes of specific intent
- O'Grady: murder - self defence as to manslaughter (not able to rely on it as he was intoxicated)
- O'Conor: self defence as to murder, mistake cuz intoxicated - not able to raise evidence
- Criminal Damage Act: s 5(2): exception!: defence is you think he would consent, irrespective of whether belief was justified
- s.76(4)(b): D may not rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced
Comments
No comments have yet been made