Criminal Law: Partial Defences Overview

The Daviault defense removes intoxication as a defense for violent general intent offenses.

Mild intoxication offers no defense, while extreme intoxication can completely negate voluntariness, acting as a rare defense for non-violent offenses.

It reduces the charge from murder to manslaughter.

<p>The accused must have voluntarily consumed a substance, known it was intoxicating, and foreseen the risk of becoming intoxicated.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Intoxication may prevent an individual from forming the required specific intent, potentially leading to acquittal for the specific crime but conviction for a lesser offense.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The objective component, which requires the victim's act to deprive an ordinary person of self-control, and the subjective component, which requires that the accused was indeed provoked.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If pre-existing psychosis is exacerbated or if long-term drug use results in brain changes that induce psychosis, it may qualify as a disease of the mind.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The judge decides if there is sufficient evidence for the provocation defense and whether there is an 'air of reality' to it.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Intoxication cannot be used as a defense for general intent offenses that involve assault or interference with bodily integrity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Extreme intoxication may be a valid defense for non-violent general intent offenses, such as damage to property.</p> Signup and view all the answers

A partial defence to a criminal charge, specifically for homicide cases, where the accused acted in the heat of passion due to sudden provocation. Reduces murder to manslaughter.

The victim's conduct must meet specific criteria (indictable offences, deprive of self-control, suddenness) to be considered provocation. The accused must have reacted without cooling-off period.

Intoxication is not a defence for general intent offences involving assault or bodily harm (introduced in 1996).

The judge determines if there's enough evidence to allow the jury to consider the provocation defence, meaning the record contains factual evidence supporting the claim.

Extreme intoxication could potentially provide a defence to general intent offences prior to 1996 and under Daviault (1994), akin to automatism or insanity. Now rare and limited to non-violent general offences.

Voluntary intoxication is not a defense for violent offenses, and it doesn't negate self-control or impulse.

Intoxication is categorized into mild, advanced, and extreme levels, impacting the defense validity.

Crimes requiring a specific mental state, like premeditation (e.g., robbery). Intoxication can be a partial defense here but not for 'basic intent' crimes.

Crimes where the mental state isn't as crucial; the act itself is enough for conviction (e.g., assault). Intoxication is irrelevant in these cases.

Using substances voluntarily, knowing the risk of intoxication and its potential effect on legal responsibilities.