Intoxication

Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences
1. Lipman
  1. Facts; D took LSD, hallucinated. Thought his girlfriend was a snake to protect himself he killed the snake (her). He was charged with murder.
  2. Principle; D will not be convicted of a specific intent offence if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea of the offence
2. Sheehan and Moore
  1. Facts; D's were drunk, killed a man by pouring petrol and setting him on fire. They were charged with murder. However were convicted with involuntary manslaughter
3. AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
  1. Facts; D wanted to kill his wife. So went and brought a knife and a bottle of whisky to give him 'dutch courage'. He drank it then stabbed his wife to death
  2. Principle; If the defendant has the required mens rea of the specific intent offence then he will be convicted. Drunken intent is still intent
Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences
1. DPP v Majewski
  1. Facts; D attacked people at a pub whilst under the influence, he also attacked the police officer following his arrest. He was convicted of assault occasioning ABH and common assault. His intoxication prevented him from forming mens rea of the offence
  2. Principle; Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated and this can be transferred to satisfy the mens rea of the crime
Involuntary intoxication and specific intent offences
1. Kingston
  1. Facts; D's coffee was spiked. D was attracted to young boys but managed when sober not to act on it. He was set up by A who put him in a room with a young boy. D indecently assaulted the boy. He was convicted.
  2. Principle; If D has the mens rea of the specific intent offence he will be convicted. Drugged intent is still intent. However if the intoxication negates the mens rea., then he will not be guilty.
2. Allen
  1. Facts; D drank some home-made wine not realising the strength. He committed sexual assaults and claimed because he was drunk that he didn't know what he was doing. He said he had not voluntarily placed himself in that condition. He was convicted
  2. Principle; To be regarded as involuntary intoxication, the intoxication has to be completely involuntary
Involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences
1. Hardie
  1. Facts; Took his girlfriend's valium thinking it would calm him down. He became aggressive and set fire to he wardrobe. D was charged with arson
  2. Principle; When D is involuntarily intoxicated he has not been reckless in becoming intoxicated. If D has not been reckless in the offence either, then he will not have the mens rea required and will be found Not Guilty

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Yasmine King over 7 years ago