Examination Timing: 00H01M56S
A man was drinking in a public bar and became very intoxicated. He had an argument with another customer and suddenly smashed this other customer in the face with his empty glass causing a wound that amounted to grievous bodily harm. The man was so intoxicated that he did not know what he was doing. The man's intoxication was voluntary. The man was arrested by the police. He has been charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Which of the following best describes the man's liability for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm?
< Previous
Your selected option: C
Next >
Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to crimes of specific intent if the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the required mens rea. Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is a crime of specific intent, requiring the defendant to have intended to cause serious injury. If the man was so intoxicated that he could not form the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, he may be acquitted of the specific intent offence. However, the correct legal principle is that voluntary intoxication can negate the specific intent required for certain crimes, making option D the most accurate.
Key Point: Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for crimes of specific intent, potentially providing a defence. However, it does not apply to crimes of basic intent where recklessness suffices.
Collect Question
userContent
