The MR is recklessness or less i.e. assault, battery, ABH
1 of 9
Specific Intent Crime
Where the MR is intention - if someone is voluntarily intoxicated and they commit a specific intent crime they may not have the MR of intention and so it will be negated to a basic intent crime i.e. murder to manslaughter
2 of 9
DPP v MAJEWSKI 1977 stated:
self induced intoxication cannot be a defence to basic intent crimes
3 of 9
HEARD 2007
a drunken intent is still an intent
4 of 9
A.G REF for N.I v GALLAGHER 1963
taking a drink to give you the courage to act on an intent = not able to use intoxication to negate the MR
5 of 9
R v HARDIE
taking a drug and it have the wrong effect may be a defence to voluntary intox - jury decides if taking the drug was reckless in the first place
6 of 9
R v FOTHERINGHAM
drunken mistakes are no defence to crime BUT
7 of 9
JAGGARD v DICKINSON
if the mistake was a genuine mistake that would have been made if the defendant was sober mistake can be used as a defence even if its induced by intoxication
8 of 9
R v O'GRADY & R v HATTON
if the defendants acted in self defence, but this was a wrongful belief because of the self induced intoxicated state they were in they cannot rely on self defence as a defence.
9 of 9
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Where the MR is intention - if someone is voluntarily intoxicated and they commit a specific intent crime they may not have the MR of intention and so it will be negated to a basic intent crime i.e. murder to manslaughter
Back
Specific Intent Crime
Card 3
Front
self induced intoxication cannot be a defence to basic intent crimes
Back
Card 4
Front
a drunken intent is still an intent
Back
Card 5
Front
taking a drink to give you the courage to act on an intent = not able to use intoxication to negate the MR
Comments
No comments have yet been made