LS202 Lecture 7: True Defences and Intoxication
1 Feb 2019
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Avoid conviction by raising a positive/true defence (excuses/justifications of offending act) Necessity, duress, automatism, intoxication, mental disorder, self-defence. Defence allowed if offence is morally/physically involuntary if ability to form intent is impaired/impossible, or if act was justified. Common law defence, casts doubt on mens rea/fault element if advanced intoxication affect foresight of consequences. Specific intent: offences with heightened mental element requires more complex thought and reasoning. Evidence of intoxication always relevant capacity vs. actual intent changed to evaluating actual intent to commit offence. General intent: crimes of minimal thought reasoning. Leary rule: intoxication is not a defence to a general intent b/c voluntary intoxication not a defence intoxication stands in for guilt related to actual offence. Unconstitutional b/c violates requirement that actus reus and mens rea = coincide, and allows conviction of those who act involuntarily. When extreme intoxication produced a state akin to automatism = would render an accused incapable of their performing a willed act/forming min. intent required.
