Why can evidence of voluntary intoxication be used in specific intent offences only?

Watch
Miracle Day
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Can't seem to grasp the entire theory, help?
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
As its all to do with intention and with basic intent offences there is often only recklessness etc
0
reply
jool
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
I haven't done this in nearly a year but I believe it is as follows.

In cases like DPP v Beard and R v Sheehan and Moore it was suggested that a person who becomes voluntarily intoxicated essentially cannot be said to have formed the necessary intent required for a specific intent crime as they are often (however not in all instances) not mentally in the right state of mind to be said to have directly intended the outcome - i.e. their culpability level is lower, it is often taken into account whether they would have committed the offence whilst sober. However, for basic intent crimes, of course recklessness suffices as the necessary intention and it has been noted in cases such as Majewski that voluntary intoxication is a reckless course of conduct, thus voluntary intoxication will not mitigate for basic intent offences.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (95)
13.91%
I'm not sure (32)
4.69%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (214)
31.33%
I have already dropped out (16)
2.34%
I'm not a current university student (326)
47.73%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed