1. Intoxication Can intoxication be used as a defence?

2. Intoxication Not really a defence in itself but is relevant in deciding if a D has the required MR for the offence. No MR for offence= NOT GUILTY GIVE EXAMPLES OF SUBSTANCES THAT CAN LEAD TO INTOXICATION

3. Guilty or Not Guilty Depends on 2 things: 1.Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary? 2.Is it an offence of Specific or Basic intent? Recap: What are Specific or Basic intent offences?

4. Task Make a list of Specific and Basic Intent Offences SpecificBasic MurderManslaughter S18 OAPA1861S47 and S20 OAPA 1861 TheftAssault Battery RobberyCriminal damage Burglary

5. What is Voluntary Intoxication? Can voluntary intoxication be used for Specific intent crimes? Illustrate with case law. What about Basic Intent Offences?

6. Involuntary Intoxication D must not know he is taking an intoxicating substance. If the D does not have MR for offence then he will be not guilty. If he does have MR, then guilty- regardless of involuntary intoxication. Therefore involuntary intoxication is not a defence. Note case of Kingston (1994).

7. Drunken Mistake D is mistaken about a key fact because he is drunk. Does he have a defence or not? What circumstances would it be defence? Cases-Lipman O’Grady, Hatton

8. Summary Copy out table from page 180

9. Are there any issues with the Laws on Intoxication?

10. Need to know if intoxification was voluntary or involuntary and if offence was specific or basic intent Voluntary Intoxification If drunk/drugs so as to not know what you were doing then not got required mens rea for offence of specific intent so it is a defence. DPP V Beard 1920 e.g. Sheehan and Moore 1975 However not a defence for basic intent as recklessness enough for MR. DPP V Majewski 1977 Involuntary Intoxification NG if does not have necessary MR for specific or basic intent offences can only be a defence where basic offence and no MR not reckless as not own fault Hardie 1985 Drunken Intent- getting drunk to commit an offence is still evidence of intent- No defence Drunken Mistake- Depends what mistake is about. If about something which means did not have necessary MR then a defence (for specific intent offences). Where offence one of basic intent no def- reckless=MR- Lipman If mistake is about something other than MR then no defence. Confusion as to amount of force reqd for Self defence is not a defence. O’Grady and Hatton

11. DPP V Majweski D got drunk and took drugs, attacked people in a pub and officers who came to arrest him. Charged with 3 AOBH (S47) and 3 assaulting police officer whilst on duty reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea

12. Sheehan and Moore 2 Defendants got drunk poured petrol over tramp and set fire to him. Too drunk to have formed intent to kill or cause GBH so not guilty of murder however had necessary intent for involuntary manslaughter( basic intent crime) Defence to specific intent crimes not basic. substitute charge