Intoxication | Consent
Intoxication
Because it enables the defendant to utilise proof of his drunkenness to demonstrate that he did not establish the mens rea for the offence, intoxication serves as a defence. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not a defence but rather a means of proving a defendant's lack of mens rea, and it should be taken into account when determining whether the defendant formed the mens rea.
Consent
Consent from the victim may also bar a crime in cases of personal crimes. Lack of consent and a denial of consent are unquestionably components of the actus reus and mens rea of crimes involving sexual assaults. It is unclear in other crimes against the person whether the lack of consent constitutes a component of the offence or if consent functions as a defence to the crime.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
understand the principles that underlie the defence of intoxication;
distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication and when they operate as defences;
understand the defence of consent;
Key Cases
Involuntary Intoxication
R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353
Voluntary Intoxication
DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142
Intoxication: As a defence
R v Morhall [1995] 3 All ER 659
Diminished responsibility
R v Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267
R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593
Self-defence
R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135
R v Fotheringham (1989) 88 Cr App R 206
R v Richardson & Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
Statutory defences
Jaggard v Dickinson [1980] 3 All ER 716
Consent
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
Consent as a defence for offences against the person
Attorney-General's Reference (No.6 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 1057
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
R v Meachen [2006] EWCA Crim 2414
The exceptions
R v Barnes [2005] WLR 910
The Exceptions
R v Jones (1986) 83 Cr App R 375
R v Richardson & Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
R v Wilson [1996] 2 Cr App R 241
What amounts to consent by the victim?
R v Richardson [1998] 2 Cr App R 200
R v Tabassum (2000) Times 26/5/00
Intoxication
Because it enables the defendant to utilise proof of his drunkenness to demonstrate that he did not establish the mens rea for the offence, intoxication serves as a defence. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not a defence but rather a means of proving a defendant's lack of mens rea, and it should be taken into account when determining whether the defendant formed the mens rea.
Consent
Consent from the victim may also bar a crime in cases of personal crimes. Lack of consent and a denial of consent are unquestionably components of the actus reus and mens rea of crimes involving sexual assaults. It is unclear in other crimes against the person whether the lack of consent constitutes a component of the offence or if consent functions as a defence to the crime.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
understand the principles that underlie the defence of intoxication;
distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication and when they operate as defences;
understand the defence of consent;
Key Cases
Involuntary Intoxication
R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353
Voluntary Intoxication
DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142
Intoxication: As a defence
R v Morhall [1995] 3 All ER 659
Diminished responsibility
R v Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267
R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593
Self-defence
R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135
R v Fotheringham (1989) 88 Cr App R 206
R v Richardson & Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
Statutory defences
Jaggard v Dickinson [1980] 3 All ER 716
Consent
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
Consent as a defence for offences against the person
Attorney-General's Reference (No.6 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 1057
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
R v Meachen [2006] EWCA Crim 2414
The exceptions
R v Barnes [2005] WLR 910
The Exceptions
R v Jones (1986) 83 Cr App R 375
R v Richardson & Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
R v Wilson [1996] 2 Cr App R 241
What amounts to consent by the victim?
R v Richardson [1998] 2 Cr App R 200
R v Tabassum (2000) Times 26/5/00
Intoxication
Because it enables the defendant to utilise proof of his drunkenness to demonstrate that he did not establish the mens rea for the offence, intoxication serves as a defence. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not a defence but rather a means of proving a defendant's lack of mens rea, and it should be taken into account when determining whether the defendant formed the mens rea.
Consent
Consent from the victim may also bar a crime in cases of personal crimes. Lack of consent and a denial of consent are unquestionably components of the actus reus and mens rea of crimes involving sexual assaults. It is unclear in other crimes against the person whether the lack of consent constitutes a component of the offence or if consent functions as a defence to the crime.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
understand the principles that underlie the defence of intoxication;
distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication and when they operate as defences;
understand the defence of consent;
Key Cases
Involuntary Intoxication
R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353
Voluntary Intoxication
DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142
Intoxication: As a defence
R v Morhall [1995] 3 All ER 659
Diminished responsibility
R v Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267
R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593
Self-defence
R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135
R v Fotheringham (1989) 88 Cr App R 206
R v Richardson & Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
Statutory defences
Jaggard v Dickinson [1980] 3 All ER 716
Consent
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
Consent as a defence for offences against the person
Attorney-General's Reference (No.6 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 1057
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
R v Meachen [2006] EWCA Crim 2414
The exceptions
R v Barnes [2005] WLR 910
The Exceptions
R v Jones (1986) 83 Cr App R 375
R v Richardson & Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
R v Wilson [1996] 2 Cr App R 241
What amounts to consent by the victim?
R v Richardson [1998] 2 Cr App R 200
R v Tabassum (2000) Times 26/5/00