Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > the defence of intoxication > Flashcards

the defence of intoxication Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

what may happen if a person has drunk a large amount of alcohol/taken a significant dose of another drug

A

lower their inhibitions/cause them to be unaware of what theyre doing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is possible if one commits the actus reus of an offence in an intoxicated state

A

they will not have the necessary mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is the basic legal principle related to MR

A

one shouldn’t be convicted in the absence of mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

when may someone be said to be blameworthy in an intoxicated state despite not having the mens rea for the offence

A

if they chose to get into such a state in the first place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what are the two types of intention in intoxication

A

specific and basic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

examples of specific intent crimes

A
  • murder
  • s.18 OAPA
  • theft
  • fraud by false representation
  • dishonesty obtaining a service
  • making off without payment
  • robbery
  • burglary
  • criminal damage with intention/recklessness as to endangering life
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

examples of basic intent crimes

A

all other offences on the course

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

intoxication cannot be a defence unless you are intoxicated to such a level that…

A

you could not and did not form the mens rea for the offence in question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what does the law draw an important distinction between

A

an intoxicated person who does not know what he is doing and one who knowingly embarks on criminal conduct because his intoxication has lowered his inhibitions/self control mechanisms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what case was the principle about distinctions between levels of intoxication

A

SHEEHAN AND MOORE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

SHEEHAN AND MOORE

A
  • 2 men set fire to a tramp with petrol
  • held to be so drunk that they could not have formed the intention to kill/inflict GBH
  • convicted of manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

case where d has mens rea despite intoxication

A

GALLAGHER

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

GALLAGHER

A
  • man drank bottle of whisky for ‘dutch courage’ to kill wife
  • despite intoxication he still had MR when he killed her- intoxication not a defence and convicted of murder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

if the mens rea was formed is intoxication a defence?

A

no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

if mens rea was not formed what question must then be asked

A

voluntary/involuntary intoxication?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what will voluntary intoxication be a defence to

A

specific intent crimes

cannot be a defence to a basic intent crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

why can voluntary intoxication not be a defence to basic intent

A

d seen as recklessness in getting intoxicated and so will suffice MR for later offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

examples of when a person can become intoxicated involuntarily

A
  • reaction to a prescribed drug
  • unpredicted reaction to a normally sedative drug
  • spiked food or drinks
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

case where d has an unpredicted reaction to a normally sedative drug

A

hardie

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

case involving spiked food/drinks

A

kingston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

when will an involuntarily intoxicated person have a complete defence to any crime

A

if this negates the mens rea for the offence

22
Q

will a voluntarily intoxicated person be convicted even if the mens rea is negated

A

yes

23
Q

will involuntary intoxicated be a defence

A

not unless the mens rea is negated

24
Q

principle in kingston

A

a drunken intention is an intention nevertheless

25
Q

does the current law make allowances for those who lose self control by involuntary intoxication

A

no its not a defence

26
Q

if the mens rea to a specific offence is negated by voluntary intoxication, what question must be asked

A

is it a complete/ partial defence

27
Q

what is open to the jury if they decide that intoxication did negate the MR for a crime of specific intent

A

to convict the accused of a lesser crime of basic intent

28
Q

which case was d accused of a lesser crime of basic intent

A

LIPMAN

29
Q

LIPMAN

A
  • held not to have specific intent to kill a human and was acquitted of murder
  • involuntary manslaughter is basic intent and he was convicted of this
30
Q

what is the lesser, basic intent offence for theft

A

isn’t one- intoxication is a complete defence

31
Q

basic intent fall back offence s.18 OAPA

A

S.20 OAPA

32
Q

are there any fallback offences for theft and robbery

A

no

33
Q

what does the defence of intoxication cover

A

intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances such as glue sniffing

34
Q

is intoxication strictly a defence

A

no but can be used as such if it negates ds mens rea

35
Q

what type of defence is intoxication

A

a general defence and d will be acquitted if it succeeds

36
Q

who is the burden on when D raises the defence of intoxication

A

on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D still had the necessary mens rea

37
Q

what does whether d can use the defence depend on

A
  • whether intoxication was voluntary/involuntary

- whether the offence charged is one of specific/basic intent

38
Q

in what case was the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes made

A

DPP v MAJEWSKI

39
Q

what are specific intent offences generally

A

those where mens rea is intent only

40
Q

what are basic intent offences generally

A

those where the mens rea includes recklessness

41
Q

what is voluntary intoxication

A

where d has chosen to take the intoxicating substance. it can also occur where D knows that the effect of a prescribed drug will be to make her intoxicated

42
Q

what is involuntary intoxication

A

where d did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance

43
Q

what will d have a defence to if he is voluntarily intoxicated

A

a specific intent crime provided he is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence SHEEHAN AND MOORE

44
Q

SHEEHAN AND MOORE

A

the Ds were very drunk when they threw petrol over a homeless person and set fire. V died as a result. they were too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or any intent to cause GBH.

THE C/A HELD THAT BECAUSE DS DIDNT HAVE MR FOR MURDER, INTOXICATION WAS A DEFENCE TO THAT SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME

45
Q

why is D guilty of the specific intent offence where he has the necessary mens rea despite his intoxication

A

the intoxication does not provide a defence- AG FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V GALLAGHER

46
Q

AG FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V GALLAGHER

A

d bought a knife to kill his wife and also a bottle of whisky to give himself ‘dutch courage’ to carry out the murder- he drank a large amount of whisky before killing his wife

his conviction for murder upheld by H/L- drunken intent is still an intent

47
Q

is voluntary intoxication a defence where the offence charged is one of basic intent

A

no- D seen as reckless in getting intoxicated so has the mens rea for the basic intent offence- DPP V MAJEWSKI

48
Q

DPP V MAJEWSKI

A
  • d taken alcohol and drugs
  • in very intoxicated state he attacked people in a pub and also police officers who tried to arrest him
  • d claimed he had no recollection of events due to his intoxication
  • convicted of various offences
  • H/L upheld all his convictions- voluntary intoxication not a defence to these basic intent offences
49
Q

when will involuntary intoxication not provide a defence

A

if d had the necessary mens rea at the time of the offence. this is so even though D would not have committed the offence without the intoxication lowering his resistance to committing the offence- KINGSTON

50
Q

KINGSTON

A
  • ds coffee spiked and he then abused a teenage boy and was charged with indecent assault
  • argued he wouldn’t have done it had he not been drugged
  • h/l upheld conviction for indecent assault
  • d still formed MR for offence so involuntary intox not a defence
  • fact that intoxicating substance removed inhibitions was not enough
51
Q

where d didn’t have the necessary MR due to his involuntary intoxication, he will not be guilty of

A

a specific intent offence nor a basic intent offence- HARDIE

52
Q

HARDIE

A
  • d depressed because his gf told him to move out of her flat
  • took some of Vs valium tablets to calm himself down
  • went on to set fire to a wardrobe in flat whilst V was asleep in room
  • conviction of basic intent for criminal damage being reckless as to endangering life quashed by C/A
  • taken valium tablets not knowing they could make behaviour inpredictable
  • involuntarily intoxicated and lacked necessary MR at time of setting fire to wardrobe

Law (39 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions