Defences - Overview Flashcards
Which of the following is true about voluntary intoxication?
A. It is always a defence to any offence
B. It can be a defence only for crimes of specific intent
C. It can excuse recklessness if D was unaware of the risk
D. It always leads to a conviction for a lesser offence
B. It can be a defence only for crimes of specific intent
Explanation: Voluntary intoxication may negate mens rea in specific intent crimes (e.g. theft) but not for basic intent crimes where recklessness suffices (e.g. assault).
When is consent not a defence to non-fatal offences against the person?
A. Where D honestly believed the victim consented
B. Where the harm is limited to minor bruises
C. Where D intended to cause ABH or worse, and no exception applies
D. Where the act took place during a lawful sporting event
C. Where D intended to cause ABH or worse, and no exception applies
Explanation: Consent is not valid for serious harm unless it falls within public interest exceptions (e.g. sport, surgery).
Finn is drugged without his knowledge and punches someone while intoxicated. What will the court consider?
A. Whether he intended to take drugs
B. Whether his intoxication was reckless
C. Whether he formed mens rea despite intoxication
D. Whether the victim provoked the attack
C. Whether he formed mens rea despite intoxication
Explanation: With involuntary intoxication, the question is whether D actually formed the mens rea (Kingston).
Nadine strikes her partner during a consensual sex game, causing ABH. The court finds that serious harm was intended. Is consent a valid defence?
A. Yes, because it was in a private setting
B. No, because consent is never allowed in sexual activity
C. Yes, if the injury was accidental and part of sexual gratification
D. No, because ABH was intended and no exception applies
D. No, because ABH was intended and no exception applies
Explanation: As in R v Brown, consent cannot excuse serious harm unless it fits a public interest exception — which sadomasochistic activity does not.
Jamal gets drunk voluntarily, punches a stranger, and causes ABH. What is most likely to happen?
A. He will be acquitted because he was drunk
B. He will be convicted as voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent
C. He will be convicted only if he knew the person
D. He will be acquitted if he didn’t foresee the outcome
B. He will be convicted as voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent
Explanation: ABH is treated as a basic intent offence for intoxication purposes. D is reckless in choosing to get drunk.
Eric punches a burglar in his house, believing the intruder might attack. The punch breaks the burglar’s jaw. What is key to whether self-defence applies?
A. Whether Eric’s belief that force was needed was honest
B. Whether the burglar had a weapon
C. Whether Eric had a criminal record
D. Whether the burglar was injured
A. Whether Eric’s belief that force was needed was honest
Explanation: Under self-defence, force is justified if D honestly believed it was necessary, and used proportionate force.
Priya borrows a coat from a friend at a party but mistakenly takes the wrong one when leaving. She is charged with theft. What is the most likely outcome?
A. She is guilty unless the owner forgives her
B. She is not guilty because she acted dishonestly
C. She is not guilty because her mistake negates mens rea
D. She is guilty because mistake is not a defence
C. She is not guilty because her mistake negates mens rea
Explanation: A genuine mistake of fact, even if unreasonable, can mean D lacked dishonesty (mens rea), so no theft.
Marcus breaks a garden fence thinking it’s part of his property. He is charged with criminal damage. What matters most for liability?
A. Whether the fence was really his
B. Whether his belief was honest, even if unreasonable
C. Whether he had been warned by neighbours
D. Whether the damage was serious
B. Whether his belief was honest, even if unreasonable
Explanation: As in R v Smith, if D genuinely believes the property is his, he lacks the mens rea for criminal damage — even if mistaken.
What is the key difference between a general and a specific defence?
A. General defences can apply to many crimes; specific defences apply to limited offences
B. Specific defences are available for all offences
C. General defences only apply to murder
D. Specific defences are only used by the prosecution
A. General defences can apply to many crimes; specific defences apply to limited offences
Explanation: General defences (like self-defence, intoxication) apply broadly. Specific defences (like diminished responsibility) are tied to specific crimes such as murder.
How does the law distinguish between basic and specific intent offences when intoxication is raised?
A. Voluntary intoxication is a defence to both types of offence
B. It only matters in theft cases
C. Voluntary intoxication can negate mens rea in specific intent offences, but not in basic intent offences
D. Basic intent crimes require proof of recklessness, and voluntary intoxication does not excuse this
D. Basic intent crimes require proof of recklessness, and voluntary intoxication does not excuse this
Explanation: In basic intent crimes (e.g. assault), recklessness suffices — and getting drunk is itself reckless. Voluntary intoxication won’t excuse liability.
