Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Voluntary intoxication, where a defendant has wilfully consumed drink or drugs before committing acts which constitute the prohibited conduct of an offence, has posed a considerable problem for the English criminal law. There is a correspondence between incidence of drinking and crimes of violence, such as assaults and stabbings.
The alternative is that the voluntary intoxication provides a "prior fault" which substitutes for the mens rea required. [ 11 ] [ 12 ] However, the taking of alcohol or drugs probably bears little similarity to the rest of the crime the defendant stands accused of it. [ 11 ]
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication.Where a crime requires a certain mental state (mens rea) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions.
R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 is an English criminal law precedent that self-induced (voluntary) intoxication, however extreme, is no defence to manslaughter, provided a loss of control is foreseen by becoming intoxicated. The defendant in voluntarily taking dangerous drugs was found to have taken a dangerous risk which ordinary individuals would ...
In some jurisdictions, intoxication may negate specific intent, a particular kind of mens rea applicable only to some crimes. For example, lack of specific intent might reduce murder to manslaughter. Voluntary intoxication nevertheless often will provide basic intent, e.g., the intent required for manslaughter. [9]
Voluntary intoxication in English law; W. Water intoxication This page was last edited on 10 April 2021, at 03:53 (UTC). Text is available under the ...
DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 is a leading English criminal law case, establishing that voluntary intoxication such as by drugs or alcohol is no defence to crimes requiring only basic intent. The mens rea requirement is satisfied by the reckless behaviour of intoxicating oneself.
Diminished responsibility and voluntary intoxication [ edit ] Voluntary intoxication will not satisfy the criterion that there must be an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957) and therefore cannot be relied upon as grounds for the partial defence. [ 3 ]