Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law > the defence of intoxication > Flashcards

the defence of intoxication 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

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
does the current law make allowances for those who lose self control by involuntary intoxication
no its not a defence
26
if the mens rea to a specific offence is negated by voluntary intoxication, what question must be asked
is it a complete/ partial defence
27
what is open to the jury if they decide that intoxication did negate the MR for a crime of specific intent
to convict the accused of a lesser crime of basic intent
28
which case was d accused of a lesser crime of basic intent
LIPMAN
29
LIPMAN
- 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
what is the lesser, basic intent offence for theft
isn't one- intoxication is a complete defence
31
basic intent fall back offence s.18 OAPA
S.20 OAPA
32
are there any fallback offences for theft and robbery
no
33
what does the defence of intoxication cover
intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances such as glue sniffing
34
is intoxication strictly a defence
no but can be used as such if it negates ds mens rea
35
what type of defence is intoxication
a general defence and d will be acquitted if it succeeds
36
who is the burden on when D raises the defence of intoxication
on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D still had the necessary mens rea
37
what does whether d can use the defence depend on
- whether intoxication was voluntary/involuntary | - whether the offence charged is one of specific/basic intent
38
in what case was the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes made
DPP v MAJEWSKI
39
what are specific intent offences generally
those where mens rea is intent only
40
what are basic intent offences generally
those where the mens rea includes recklessness
41
what is voluntary intoxication
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
what is involuntary intoxication
where d did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance
43
what will d have a defence to if he is voluntarily intoxicated
a specific intent crime provided he is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence SHEEHAN AND MOORE
44
SHEEHAN AND MOORE
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
why is D guilty of the specific intent offence where he has the necessary mens rea despite his intoxication
the intoxication does not provide a defence- AG FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V GALLAGHER
46
AG FOR NORTHERN IRELAND V GALLAGHER
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
is voluntary intoxication a defence where the offence charged is one of basic intent
no- D seen as reckless in getting intoxicated so has the mens rea for the basic intent offence- DPP V MAJEWSKI
48
DPP V MAJEWSKI
- 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
when will involuntary intoxication not provide a defence
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
KINGSTON
- 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
where d didn't have the necessary MR due to his involuntary intoxication, he will not be guilty of
a specific intent offence nor a basic intent offence- HARDIE
52
HARDIE
- 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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions