intoxication

Question 1

intoxication is in the argument of……

Answer 1

public policy argument

Question 2

what is the public policy argument

Answer 2

an argument that assesses a decision in terms of how that decision affects society as a whole

Question 3

why was the public policy put in place

Answer 3

cant treat drunk people better then sober people

Question 4

what is the public policy argument in simple terms

Answer 4

aimed to protect the public from those who, by reason of intoxication pose a threat or danger.

Question 5

what does criminal liability involve in intoxication

Answer 5

actus reus and mens rea

Question 6

how does intoxication affect criminal liability

Answer 6

establish weather the defendant formed the mens rea at the time of the act

Question 7

what is the case that links voluntary intoxication

Answer 7

R V Lipman 1970

Question 8

what happened in the case R v Lipman 1970 relating to voluntary intoxication

Answer 8

D took LSD, he then strangled and suffocated his girlfriend, convicted of manslaughter, did not have the men’s rea for murder.
LP- voluntary intoxication is classed as reckless behavior, therefore he had the appropriate men’s rea for manslaughter

Question 9

what is the definition of intoxication

Answer 9

under influence of alcohol, drugs or other substances

Question 10

what is the definition of voluntary intoxication

Answer 10

taking alcohol and drugs willingly

Question 11

what is the definition of involuntary intoxication

Answer 11

not taking alcohol or drugs willingly

Question 12

what are the two questions that the court has to use in order to find out if intoxication can be used as a defense

Answer 12

1. whether the defendant became intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily
2. whether the offence charged is classes as a crime of basic or specific intent

Question 13

what is the case for involuntary intoxication

Answer 13

R v Kingston 1994

Question 14

what happened in the case R v Kingston in relation to involuntary intoxication

Answer 14

D was homosexual pedophile, him and 15 yr old boy was lured and they drugged both of them, D sexually abused the boy, D convicted of indecent assault.
LP- if a D had formed the men’s rea for an offence involuntary intoxication cannot be a defence

Question 15

what case related to the rule of basic and specific intent

Answer 15

DPP v Majewski 1977

Question 16

what happened in the case DPP v Majewski 1977 relating to the different intent

Answer 16

D was charged with the offence of section 47 assault, ABH, against a policeman after becoming voluntary intoxicated, the D was convicted
LP- voluntary intoxication may be used as a defence in crImes of specific intent

Question 17

what is a specific intent crime

Answer 17

require a men’s rea higher than recklessness

Question 18

what are examples of specific intent crimes

Answer 18

murder
theft
robbery
arson/criminal damage with intent
handling stolen goods

Question 19

what is a basic intent crime

Answer 19

men’s rea is reckless and they still get charged the same

Question 20

examples of basic intent crime

Answer 20

manslaughter
rape
arson/culminal damage reckless
assault and battery

Question 21

what happens if it is a specifc intent crime and has intoxication as a defence

Answer 21

if there is a lesser charge, reduce the sentence e.g. murder to manslaughter
if no lesser sentence than is will be acquitted

Question 22

why will they still get charged the same with a basic intent if intoxication is used as a defense

Answer 22

if D is voluntary intoxicated their conduct is already reckless and therefore they have the required men’s rea