intoxication

Question 1

what is controversial about the law on intoxication?

Answer 1

the law on intoxication is controversial because there is conflict between legal principles and public policy because legal principles would mean that many people would need to be acquitted for offences because they were intoxicated , where as public policy does not see intoxication as a good offence, many people would be getting away with crimes of intoxication did not have any limits

Question 2

what is the moral theory ?

Answer 2

an explanation on why intoxication results to a crime - alcohol acts as a scape goat for defendants and there violent acts if there were no restraints

Question 3

what is the burden of proof for intoxication ?

Answer 3

evidence of intoxication is needed, and is hard to prove eg in R V GROAK

Question 4

what are some types of intoxication ?

Answer 4

alcohol , drugs , prescribed drugs , glue or substances such as white spirits

Question 5

what is the definition of intoxication ?

Answer 5

this is a circumstance that may alter the mens rea of a defendnat

Question 6

is intoxication a defence?

Answer 6

no intoxication is not a defence to a crime

Question 7

when can intoxication be successful

Answer 7

• intoxication can only be successful if the intoxication was invouatry or the courts are convinced that the defendant lacked mens rea or if illustrated in r v Kingston

Question 8

what case illustrated the lack of mens rea?

Answer 8

R V KINGSTON

Question 9

what is the word that courts use when a defendant deliberately becomes intoxicated as apart of a criminal plan

Answer 9

CONTINUING ACT, which supply’s the mens rea even if his state of mind at the time had no intention

Question 10

what is meant by basic intent according to Caldwell ?

Answer 10

this mens that a crime can be committed recklessly this is not sufficient enough for intoxication because it shows some intention

Question 11

what is meant by specific intent |?

Answer 11

These are crimes that have been committed intentionally. this includes crimes of murder ie LIPMAN and GBH R V Brown and Stratton

Question 12

what case can be used to i distinguish basic intent and specific intent crime

Answer 12

MAJEWSKI

Question 13

what cases illustrates that specific intent needed to be proven

Answer 13

DPP V BEARD, illustrated that specific intent needed to be prove

Question 14

what is meant by voluntary intoxication

Answer 14

where a defendant voluntarily puts themselves in an intoxicated state to the extent they are not cable of forming mens rea

Question 15

what case demonstrates voluntary intoxication ?

Answer 15

R V ALLEN - was not aware of how strong the alcohol was that he consumed which was not suffient for the defence of intoxication because it demonstrates basic intent

Question 16

what have courts said about basic intent>

Answer 16

drunken intent is still intent R V SHEEHAN

Question 17

what case challenged the idea of basic intent and specific intent?

Answer 17

RV LIPMAN - the jury didn’t know if he had specific intent for murder because they couldn’t understand if he had intent to murder so he was guilty of manslaughter

Question 18

what are the 3 questions to ask when trying to understand if intoxication can be used as a defence ?

Answer 18

1) was the defendant intoxicated? if not he cannot use intoxication for a defence - R V KINGSTON
2) is the intoxication involuntary? HARDIE, if so the defence is available if the intoxication was voluntary eg ALLAN then ask the next question
3) if the offence of basic not available intent or specific intent( majewski)

Question 19

what is meant by Dutch courage?

Answer 19

Dutch courage refers to the method where a person may intentionally intoxicate themselves to give them courage to do a crime as illustrated in
attorney generals refence(AG) for northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963

Question 20

what is the case that can be used as evidence for Dutch courage ?

Answer 20

AG FOR NORTHAN IRELAND V GALLAGHER 1963

Question 21

WHAT DID LORD DENNING STATE IN attorney generals reference

Answer 21

he stated that a man that is sane and sober forms an intentional to kill and makes preparation for this knowing it is wrong cannot rely on the offence of voluntary intoxication even if he