intoxication

Question 1

voluntary intoxication

Answer 1

basic crimes will fail and for specific crimes it can reduce the sentence if it lacks MR

Question 2

involuntary intoxication

Answer 2

if they succeed it can lead to an acquittal, drugs from a doctor, soporific drugs and spiked drinks

Question 3

dutch courage

Answer 3

no defence as they had to MR before

Question 4

Majewski

Answer 4

drink and drug marathon - attacked multiple people (S.47). He was guilty as he had intoxicated intent for a basic reckless crime. Goes against S.8 as it ignored D’s foresight.

Question 5

Richardson and Irwin

Answer 5

Uni students threw friend of a balcony. NG due to misdirection. Test - if sober would D have had the MR. Goes with S.8 as it should fail but it looks at D’s foresight.

Question 6

Lipman

Answer 6

took LSD and strangled his girlfriend who he thought was a snake. NG as he lacked the MR for murder so convicted of manslaughter, good PP.

Question 7

Beard

Answer 7

raped and strangled a young girl. G, capable of forming intent. At the time did they have capability?

Question 8

Sheeman - law today

Answer 8

set fire to a tramp. NG as intox succeeded for manslaughter. Did D form the MR?

Question 9

Heard

Answer 9

rubbed hi genetials up and down a police officers thigh. G as it was a basic crime. They had intoxicated intent.

Question 10

Gallagher

Answer 10

got drunk to be able to kill his wife. G has he had the MR before. DC is never a defense.

Question 11

Bailey

Answer 11

30 years diabetic, didn’t eat after insulin and assaulted his ex. G intox failed as he was reckless and had intoxicated intent.

Question 12

Hardie

Answer 12

Took valium for the first time and set fire to a wardrobe. NG intox succeeded as he hadn’t been reckless as it was involuntary

Question 13

Kingston

Answer 13

blackmailed and spiked work collegue to rape young boy. NG COA - spiking. G HOL - intox intent

Question 14

Allen

Answer 14

homemade wine drunk and raped young boy. G as it was a basic crime of invol intox

Question 15

Harris

Answer 15

extreme drinking triggered alcohol psychosis causing D to set fir to the house. intoxication irrelevant but insanity.

Question 16

Lipman - other defenses

Answer 16

LSD snake. Automatism irrelevant. Intoxication relevant, manslaughter.

Question 17

Fotheringham

Answer 17

raped wife but it was actually the baby sitter. G basic intent. Intoxicated mistake is no defense

Question 18

O’Grady

Answer 18

8 ciders, mistaked his friend for hitting him and killed him. G basic crime so reduced to manslaughter. Obiter - intox mistake isn’t a defense for specific.

Question 19

Hatton

Answer 19

5ft stick and 20 pints - killed man. G of murder intox mistake is no defense for specific.

Question 20

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 20

broek through ‘friends’ window, wrong house. NG even though it was into mistake. Established the defense under criminal damage.

Question 21

Dietshmann

Answer 21

Aunty Sarah his girlfriend was killed making him drink whilst depressed. D kicked a man to death. NG as DR succeeded. Without alcohol did D have the DR?

Question 22

Tandy

Answer 22

alcoholic mum killed her daughter who admitted to her she was been sexually abused. DR failed, no brain damage, 24/7 invol xxxx

Question 23

Wood

Answer 23

2 men drinking, he tried having oral sex with him so killed him with a meat clever. DR succeeded as addiction was now accepted as part of DR.