Intoxication crib sheet PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Intoxication crib sheet PDF

Description

INTOXICATION: DPP v MAJEWSKI 

VOLUNTARY/INVOLUNTARY --> involuntary= he is not aware, voluntary= acts of his own volition --> Hardie- established that a D will be involuntarily intoxicated where he has voluntarily taken drugs that usually induce drowsiness but highly unusually have an opposite effect. In these situations



BASIC OR SPECIFIC INTENT OFFENCE --> NO DEFINITION OF WHAT THIS MEANS --> For exam: - Basic intent: manslaughter, assault, battery, sec 20 GBH, sexual assault, taking without consent, criminal damage - Specific intent: murder, s 18- wounding with intent, AR of rape, theft, aggravated criminal damage, inchoate offences --> R v Morgan-(SI meant crimes with an ulterior intent)--> Majewski (adapted above to mean crimes where there was a purposive element to the MR) --> R v Caldwell- (approach was, look at wording of the charge, if charge stated intention then the offence would be a specific intent crime, anything less and it would be classed as a basic intent crime)--> R v Heard ( Court classed the offence of sexual assault which requires intentional touching by the defendant as a basic offence crime which followed the Morgan decision but conflicted directly with Caldwell.) --> I don’t think this is well defined, where there is voluntary intoxication in a crime of basic intent, it almost presents the crown the option to not prove the MR which again goes against the basic principle of criminal law, (presumption of innocence until proven guilty)



DANGEROUS DRUG?- Bailey --> prescription drugs will never be classified as dangerous even if they are not prescribed to the D or taken in excess. In these cases the correct defence is non-insane automatism.



DID D LACK MR BECAUSE HE WAS INTOXICATED?

--> Intoxication is not a defence it is a denial of criminal responsibility, they are admitting they did the AR but deny they had the MR as a result of their intoxication --> distinction between offences of basic and specific intent, held that in cases of the former, voluntary intoxication cannot form the basis for a defense even if the intoxication produces a state of automatism. --> RECKLESSNESS-- if the D's automatism was caused by the D's own doing (excessive drinking/ consuming illegal drugs) automatism as a defense will not be possible. In all other cases, whether basic or specific intent, the d will almost always be acquitted. The only instance in which the specific/basic distinction matters is where the defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton. Whether the defendant has been reckless is a subjective question to be determined on a case to case basis with regard to the defendant’s knowledge of the risk....