Intoxication Flashcards
Which of the following best describes the legal principle in R v Dietschmann?
A. A defendant can rely solely on intoxication to prove diminished responsibility.
B. A defendant with both a mental abnormality and intoxication can succeed with diminished responsibility if the abnormality alone substantially impaired their mental responsibility.
C. Mental abnormality must be the only factor in causing the killing.
D. Diminished responsibility is not available when intoxication is involved.
B. A defendant with both a mental abnormality and intoxication can succeed with diminished responsibility if the abnormality alone substantially impaired their mental responsibility.
Explanation: The key point in Dietschmann is that juries must consider whether the abnormality alone, discounting intoxication, impaired D’s mental responsibility.
Amira, who has Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS), kills her partner after binge drinking for several days. Evidence shows she had limited control due to ADS. Which is the most accurate legal position?
A. Amira cannot use diminished responsibility because her drinking was voluntary.
B. She must prove that ADS was the only cause of the killing.
C. Amira may rely on diminished responsibility if ADS caused a substantial impairment of her mental functioning.
D. ADS is not a recognised medical condition under the Homicide Act.
C. Amira may rely on diminished responsibility if ADS caused a substantial impairment of her mental functioning.
Explanation: Following R v Stewart and R v Kay, ADS can support diminished responsibility if it significantly impairs one of the abilities under s2(1A).
Luca, who is severely intoxicated, stabs a man during an argument after being teased about his alcoholism. Which of the following is most likely true regarding the loss of control defence?
A. If the taunts about alcoholism form part of the qualifying trigger, Luca’s condition may be taken into account in assessing the gravity of the provocation.
B. Luca cannot use the defence because he was drunk.
C. The defence of loss of control is unavailable for intoxicated persons.
D. Alcoholism can never be considered as part of the circumstances under s54.
A. If the taunts about alcoholism form part of the qualifying trigger, Luca’s condition may be taken into account in assessing the gravity of the provocation.
Explanation: In R v Morhall and Asmelash, if intoxication is directly relevant to the qualifying trigger (e.g. taunted about it), it can be considered.
Which of the following is true about voluntary intoxication and murder?
A. Voluntary intoxication is only relevant if it prevents the formation of intent.
B. It always provides a defence to murder.
C. It is treated the same as involuntary intoxication.
D. It converts murder into manslaughter automatically.
A. Voluntary intoxication is only relevant if it prevents the formation of intent.
Explanation: The key rule is that voluntary intoxication only negates liability if it means D lacked the mens rea. See R v Kingston.
Tomas drinks heavily and stabs his neighbour during a dispute. At trial, he claims he feared serious violence. Evidence shows he provoked the neighbour earlier that day hoping for a fight. What is the most likely legal outcome?
A. He can rely on the fear trigger as part of a loss of control defence.
B. He may succeed if he shows subjective fear.
C. He cannot rely on the fear trigger as he incited the violence to provide an excuse to act.
D. Incitement only prevents use of the anger trigger.
C. He cannot rely on the fear trigger as he incited the violence to provide an excuse to act.
Explanation: Under s55(6)(a), if D incites the situation to justify violence, the fear trigger is unavailable.
Sophie, who suffers from a recognised medical condition, is voluntarily intoxicated when she kills her partner. The jury believes she would still have killed even if sober, due to her condition. Which of the following applies?
A. Her intoxication prevents a diminished responsibility defence.
B. She cannot be convicted of murder.
C. She must prove the intoxication alone caused her conduct.
D. She may still succeed if the abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired her, despite intoxication.
D. She may still succeed if the abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired her, despite intoxication.
Explanation: R v Dietschmann allows diminished responsibility to succeed if D proves the abnormality alone caused the impairment, even if intoxicated.
Which of the following most accurately summarises the impact of intoxication on the normal person test for loss of control?
A. Intoxication is ignored unless it forms part of the qualifying trigger.
B. The normal person is judged with D’s exact level of tolerance and intoxication.
C. Intoxication always prevents the defence.
D. Intoxication can never be considered in loss of control.
A. Intoxication is ignored unless it forms part of the qualifying trigger.
Explanation: As per R v Asmelash, intoxication is not generally relevant unless it is part of the circumstances leading to the qualifying trigger.
Ali has no diagnosed condition but is heavily intoxicated when he kills his housemate. He claims diminished responsibility. What is the most likely result?
A. He may use the defence if he had intent.
B. He may use the defence if intoxication was involuntary.
C. He must prove the alcohol caused abnormal behaviour.
D. He cannot use diminished responsibility because voluntary intoxication alone does not suffice.
D. He cannot use diminished responsibility because voluntary intoxication alone does not suffice.
Explanation: R v Dowds confirmed that voluntary acute intoxication, without more, is not enough to establish diminished responsibility.
