|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Legal terminology takes the word ‘intoxication’ to mean conditions brought about by the consumption of alcohol or drugs, or both. ... However, in many cases where the defendant is intoxicated, the effect of the intoxication will be to remove his inhibitions, thus meaning that he will do something he would not have done had he been sober, but he would nonetheless possess the necessary mens rea. ...
The general rule can be stated that intoxication will provide a defence only where it negatives the required mens rea, although this defence is very restricted. Where the effect of intoxication is simply to remove the inhibitions it will be no defence; an intoxicated or drugged intent is still intent. In these circumstances there may be a defence for the defendant if he can bring himself within another defence, such as that of diminished responsibility. Even where the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the mens rea, the defence may not necessarily be relied upon. It would depend on a number or factors, for example whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary, and the offence with which the defendant is charged. This essay will discuss whether either of the mentioned states of mind can afford the accused a defence to a criminal charge, and the efficiency of this law.
The general principle governing the defence of voluntary intoxication, as opposed to involuntary, is that stated in Majewski [1977] AC 443. ...
In order to be able to comment on how far intoxication can provide a defence for those charged with a criminal offence, one must primarily distinguish between offences of specific and basic intent. The cases in which the difference between these two types of offences was distinguished are Majewski [1977] AC 443 and Beard [1920] AC 479. ... The defendant relied on the defence of voluntary intoxication stating that he never possessed the necessary mens rea. The House of Lords stated that this defence is only relevant where the offence is one of specific intent. ... It was again made clear that the defence of voluntary intoxication may only be relevant if the offence in question is one of specific intent. ... So, if one were to be charged with murder and due to voluntary intoxication was unable to form the required mens rea (intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm), then relying upon the defence of voluntary intoxication, the criminal charge will be reduced to manslaughter.
Approximate Word count = 1782
Approximate Pages = 7.1
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|