Summary
Law 116 Intoxication Summary
- Module
- Criminal Law
- Institution
- The University Of Warwick (UoW)
This is a comprehensive and detailed summary on Intoxication; Specific & Basic Intent for Law 116. *Essential!! * Precise *For you!!
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
LA 116 – Criminal LawSummary Notes
Intoxication
Intoxication
Voluntary Intoxication Involuntary Intoxication
Basic Intent Specific Intent
Non-dangerous Drugs
Non-volitional
consumption
Prescription
Medication
** Exam Questions:
- Essay:
1. Only intoxication
2. Intoxication + MR
3. Impact on operation of other defences
o Discuss within the context of principle/ police debate
- Problem question:
o Often involve intoxicated defendants
o Complication is that combine with defences
Combine with any offence
Look for any mention of prescription drugs, alcohol/ illegal drugs by D
consider impact of intoxication on D’s liability
A. Voluntary Intoxication
o D knowingly consume recreational drugs/ alcohol, knowing their nature
o Includes situation where D has knowingly consumed alcohol but is mistaken as to its
strength/ where he was knowingly taken recreational drugs but if is unclear about
effect on him
o Only if D is so intoxicated that his ability to form MR is impaired that the law may take
account of his voluntary intoxication
o Depends upon the nature of the offence he has committed as a distinction is made
between specific and basic intent
Specific & Basic Intent
Specific Intent Basic Intent
MR: intention MR: intention & recklessness
If D is intoxicated but If D is so intoxicated
still able to form that he is incapable of D’s intoxication supplies MR of
requisite MR forming requisite MR offences his intoxication
liability unaffected by no liability (but can combined w/ AR will establish liability
intoxication be liable for different
offences)
Sheehan & Moore DPP v Beard [1920] DPP v Majewski [1977] (HL)
[1975] (CA) (HL)
1
Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent
, LA 116 – Criminal Law
Summary Notes
Key Case: AG Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] (HL)
Issue: Dutch Courage
Facts: D decides to kill his wife. He intoxicated himself with a bottle of alcohol before
killing his wife to give himself the courage to kill. Argued that he was so intoxicated
that he was incapable of forming intention to kill.
Legal Principle: Held that a person who forms intention to kill whilst sober and drinks
to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing whilst intoxicated still liable
** NOTE:
- AR & MR must coincide
- But, applying the principle would result in acquittal in Dutch Courage cases D
would not be able to form MR due to intoxication (One distinction to make)
- Policy has prevailed as a person who forms MR & negates that w/
intoxication in order to commit the offence held liable
‘Drunk intent is still an intent’
Specific Intent
- E.g. Murder
o Murder can only be committed intentionally
o The jury must see whether D was so intoxicated that they were incapable or lack
of capacity to form the necessary MR, or intent the result so no MR for the
offence, not guilty
o If the D was intoxicated but not so intoxicated where there is still able to or have
the capacity, jury will see if they were still able to form MR
o An intention formed in drink or under influence of drugs remains an intention
o If specific intent, can prevent D from forming MR or D can show then they can
use it as a defence
Basic Intent
- Policy considerations are evident in relation to voluntary intoxication and basic intent
- D cannot argue that he failed to recognise a risk of harm because of intoxication
- Voluntary intoxication = recklessness = basic intent so intoxication cannot be a defence
o If D voluntary intoxicated, then look at the type of offence, can it be committed
recklessly or intentionally?
o Intentionally = specific intent
o Recklessly = basic intent
- Necessary to distinguish whether D has taken alcohol or illegal drugs from those where D
has taken lawful substances, such as medicines prescribed by a doctor
o Alcohol and Illegal drugs
o Rules still applies even if is low alcohol level
R v Allen [1988]
D was drinking his friend's home-made wine, which he believed
had only a little alcohol in it.
Held to be voluntarily intoxicated
Would be different if he ha though that what he was drinking was
a non-alcohol fruit punch, which in fact had alcohol (or drugs) in it
= involuntarily intoxication
A person who is addicted to drugs or alcohol is treated as voluntarily
taking the substances, unless they can show they had no control at all
over taking them
2
Intoxication; Basic & Specific Intent
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller anyiamgeorge19. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75619 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now