Defences 2

Question 1

What is the most common type of non inane automatism

Answer 1

Intoxication

Question 2

What case defines what intoxication is and what is it

Answer 2

R v Lipman

Intoxication by all drugs, not just alcohol

Question 3

What is needed in order for the defence of intoxication to be successfully argued?

Answer 3

Must be so serios as to render that person automaton in the sense that they cant form intentions or be aware of unjustified risks

Must be so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming a mens rea

Question 4

Whats the onus and standard of proof in relation to intoxication

Answer 4

Defence bring it up and no obligation to prove based on balance of probabilities

Prosecution must disprove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt

Question 5

What acse talks about intocixation

Answer 5

AG v Manning

Question 6

AG v MAnning

Answer 6

Accused kileld a woman after 8 pints of stout

Mere drunkness is not sufficient for the defence of intoxication

Intoxication must go so far to render person. incapable of knowing what theyre doing and know the consequences or probable consequences of his actuons

Question 7

What are the 2 types of intoxication

Answer 7

1. Self induced intoxication
2. Involuntary intoxication

Question 8

What is self-induced intoxication

Answer 8

If person consumes drugs to render themself intoxcated

Question 9

2 types of crime and intoxication

Answer 9

Specific intent
Basic intent

Question 10

Whats a crime of specific intent

Answer 10

Threshold must be intention for mens rea, recklessness not sufficient to prove offence

Question 11

cases on crimes of specific intent

Answer 11

DPP v Beard

AG v GAllagher

Question 12

DPP v Beard

Answer 12

If the accused is so intoxicated that he cannot form the specific intent required for the offence, he cannot be convicted of that offence.

Self induced intoxication is a defence to a crime if because of the intoxication, the accused hadnt formed the required intention

Question 13

AG v Gallagher

Answer 13

Accused planned to murder his wife while sober.

Drank alcohol to gain dutch courage or dull his conscience.

Killed his wife while drunk.

Held: Pre-formed intention (mens rea) is sufficient; intoxication does not remove it.
\
If intent exists before intoxication, self-induced drunkenness does not negate mens rea.

Intoxication cannot excuse a crime of specific intent if the accused drank to give himself “Dutch courage” to commit the crime.

Question 14

What is a crime of basic intent

Answer 14

Recklessness is sufficient to constiute each part of the required mens rea

Question 15

Cases on basic intent crimes

Answer 15

R v Caldwell (r v MAjewski

DPP v Reilly

Question 16

R v Caldwell

Answer 16

In DPP v Majewski, the accused became voluntarily intoxicated through drugs/alcohol.

While intoxicated, he committed offences requiring recklessness (crimes of basic intent).

Holding:

Self-induced intoxication is NOT a defence for crimes of basic intent.

Reasoning: By voluntarily intoxicating himself, the accused recklessly disregarded the consequences of his actions.

Voluntary intoxication itself provides the mens rea for crimes of recklessness/basic intent.

Question 17

DPP. v Reilly

Answer 17

Facts:

The accused voluntarily consumed a large amount of alcohol and later fell asleep.

During the night, he stabbed a baby repeatedly, killing it.

He claimed to have no recollection of the incident.

Holding:

Voluntary intoxication can be a defence for specific intent crimes (like murder) if it prevents the formation of intent.

It is NOT a defence for basic intent crimes (like manslaughter).

If lack of control (automatism) arises from self-induced intoxication, the defence does not apply.

The specific vs basic intent distinction is maintained in Irish law, as endorsed from DPP v Majewski.

Question 18

What is involuntary intoxication

Answer 18

Where someone b no fault of their own becomesd intoxicated

Can give rise to full defence

Question 19

Cases on involuntary intoxication

Answer 19

R v HArdle

R v Kingstom

DPP v Murphy

DPP v Lyons

Question 20

R v HArdie

Answer 20

Accused took a number of valiium tablets cux he was sad that his gf broke up with him
RAther than calming him down they actually made him agressive and he started a fire at his gf house

Held: Accused couldnt have known that the tablets could intoxicate him and therefore could not have been voluntarily intoxicated

If he knew that the drug could do that, defence would not be available

Question 21

R v Kingston

Answer 21

Facts:

The accused had pedophilic tendencies.

Another person drugged him (innocent/involuntary intoxication) to set up a sexual assault.

While under the influence, the accused sexually assaulted a boy.

Holding:

Involuntary or innocent intoxication does not automatically excuse criminal liability.

If the accused still forms the necessary mens rea (criminal intent), he can be convicted.

Key principle: “A drunken intent is still an intent.”

The intoxication only made him act more readily on an intent he already possessed; it did not negate the mens rea.

FE1 Takeaways:

Involuntary/innocent intoxication may be a defence only if it prevents the formation of mens rea.

If mens rea is present despite intoxication, the accused is still criminally liable.

Always distinguish incapacity to form intent (possible defence) vs. acting on pre-existing intent (no defence).

Question 22

DPP v Murphy

Answer 22

Facts:

The accused set fire to a house on Innisboffin, County Galway, killing three sisters.

He was on painkillers for a rib fracture and had been drinking heavily before the incident.

Witnesses described strange behaviour and signs of alcohol intoxication, with some suggesting he may also have been drugged.

The accused pleaded involuntary/innocent intoxication as a defence.

Legal Principle:

Involuntary or innocent intoxication can be a full defence if the person was so impaired that they:

Did not know what they were doing, and

Had no control over their actions.

If the person knew what they were doing or retained control, the defence fails.

Holding:

The court did not accept the defence, implying the accused retained awareness or control despite intoxication.

Question 23

DPP v Lyons

Answer 23

Facts:

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

He pleaded not guilty, claiming involuntary intoxication due to prescription anti-cholesterol drugs.

He argued that the drugs caused a mental state in which he did not know what he was doing or lacked control.

Expert evidence was presented to support this claim.

Holding:

The jury rejected the defence of involuntary intoxication.

The accused was found guilty.

Question 24

Defence of intoxication in relation to murder
article

Answer 24

Duurack- killing while under the influence

Intoxication rarely relied upon in murder trials in Ireland, despite widespread alcohol consumption.

Voluntary intoxication is considered an individual choice; Irish law does not excuse diminished mental capacity caused by alcohol.

Partial defence to murder exists if the accused did not form the specific intent to kill.

The jury decides intent based on all evidence, including alcohol consumption.

If voluntary intoxication negates specific intent, the accused may be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.

Innocent (involuntary) intoxication can be considered by the jury when determining whether the accused had control or awareness of their actions.

Key question for the jury: Did the accused have the requisite intention, inferred from all circumstances including intoxication?

Question 25

Recent case

Answer 25

DPP v Eadon

Question 26

DPP v Eadon

Answer 26

Facts: Appellant convicted of murdering his mother; plea of manslaughter and defence of diminished responsibility were rejected by jury. Appellant argued on appeal that due to voluntary intoxication he lacked the specific intent required for murder. He claimed the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding how intoxication affects intent. Key Legal Issue: Can voluntary intoxication be considered in assessing whether the accused had specific intent for murder? Supreme Court Holding (2019): Voluntary intoxication may be a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not general intent. Trial judges must instruct the jury that intoxication is relevant to whether the accused actually formed the intent, not merely whether they had the capacity. Voluntary intoxication cannot entirely excuse criminal liability. It may negate specific intent for a greater offence (e.g., murder) but does not apply to lesser offences (e.g., manslaughter). Previous practice focusing on capacity rather than actual formation of intent is incorrect. Takeaways for FE1 exams: Distinguish specific vs general intent offences. Voluntary intoxication can only negate specific intent. Jury directions must link intoxication to actual intent, not just capacity. Intoxication is never a full defence; it cannot reduce liability for lesser offences automatically.

Question 27

Whats self defence governed by

Answer 27

S18-22 of NFOAP

Question 28

Section 18

Answer 28

the use of force by a person will be lawful: (a) To protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; (b) To protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass of infringement; or (c) To protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction, or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or (d) To prevent crime or breach of the peace.

Question 29

S18(5)

Answer 29

Key Points – Lawful Use of Force (s.18): Accused’s belief matters: Whether force is lawful depends on what the person honestly believes about the circumstances. Objective correctness not required: It does not matter if the belief is mistaken, only that it is honestly held. Examples: If a person believes someone is being assaulted and uses force to defend them, the force can be lawful even if it was unnecessary. The right to defend applies regardless of any special relationship (e.g., Attorney General v Keatley – defending a sibling). Proportionality: Force must be proportionate to the threat. Excessive force is not justified, and petty crimes cannot justify disproportionate force. Reasonable grounds: Whether the belief was reasonable is considered only to determine if the belief was honestly held; it does not itself determine legality.

Question 30

Reasonable force State case

Answer 30

DPP v Barnes Reasonable & necessary: Force must be both reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, judged according to the accused’s belief. Subjective + Objective test: Subjective: What the person honestly believes is necessary. Objective: Courts check whether the degree of force is beyond what a reasonable person would consider proportionate. No fixed formula: The court cannot give an exact formula for how much force is allowed; it is case-specific. Example – Householder: In DPP v Barnes, the court emphasized balancing personal belief with societal standards to prevent abuse of self-judgment in using force.

Question 31

Self induced self defence what section and what case

Answer 31

S18(7) R v Browne

Question 32

S18(7) R v Browne

Answer 32

Cannot engineer a fight: You cannot create a situation on purpose just so you can use force and claim self-defence. Foreseen consequences allowed: You can engage in lawful activities even if you foresee someone might use unlawful force in response. Case example – R v Browne [1973] NI 96: A person who deliberately provokes an attack to justify self-defence cannot rely on s.18. Memory tip: “No setup for self-defence, but lawful acts foreseeably provoking violence are OK.”

Question 33

Lawful arrest

Answer 33

S19

Question 34

S19

Answer 34

Lawful purpose: You may use force to effect or assist in a lawful arrest. Belief matters: Even if the arrest is actually unlawful, force is lawful if you honestly believe it is lawful. Reasonableness: The force used must be reasonable in the circumstances, based on what the person believes at the time. Reference to s.1(2): Courts consider whether the belief was honestly held, even if not objectively justified. Memory tip: “Force okay for arrest if honestly believed lawful, and reasonable in the moment.”

Question 35

Force

Answer 35

s20

Question 36

s20

Answer 36

Force includes: Direct or indirect application: physically applying force to a person or property, or causing an impact. Threats: threatening a person with force counts as using force. Detention: holding someone against their will, even without actual physical force, counts as using force. Property threats: threatening to use force against property counts as using force. Memory tip: “Force = hit, impact, threat, or detention—against person or property.”

Question 37

Opportunity to retreat

Answer 37

20(4)

Question 38

20(4)

Answer 38

Courts consider whether the accused could have retreated before using force. No absolute duty to retreat—a person is not legally required to run away. The opportunity to retreat is one factor among others in deciding if the force used was reasonable. Restates the common law principle on retreat.

Question 39

prepatorty acts

Answer 39

s20(2)

Question 40

20(2)

Answer 40

Sections 18 & 19 (use of force for lawful purposes and in arrest) also apply to acts immediately preparatory to using force. Example: Possessing a weapon to protect yourself from a likely attack. Lawful only if reasonable in the circumstances, based on what the possessor honestly believes. Unreasonable if the person possesses a weapon just because they think they might be threatened, without a genuine basis.

Question 41

preparatory acts case

Answer 41

DPP v Ryan

Question 42

DPP v Ryan

Answer 42

The applicants were in a restaurant when they saw two men approaching them armed with a walking stick and a snooker cue. Believing they were about to be attacked, the applicants grabbed a baby chair and a sign to defend themselves. A fight ensued between the parties. Holding: The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the defence of self-defence extends to acts done in advance and in anticipation of an attack. The law allows a person to take reasonable preparatory action if they honestly believe an attack is imminent.