Criminal Law: Defences to Offences
72 Questions
4 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is intoxication considered as in the context of criminal law?

  • A mitigating circumstance
  • A defence
  • A denial of Mens Rea (correct)
  • An excuse for criminal behaviour

    • In R v Kingston, what was the court's ruling regarding a drunken intention?

  • A drunken intention is not an intention
  • A drunken intention is still an intention (correct)
  • The defendant must prove their own innocence
  • The prosecution must prove the defendant's innocence

    • In R v Hardie, what was the court's ruling regarding the valium tablets taken by the defendant?

  • Valium is not a dangerous drug and the defendant had no reason to believe it would lead to reckless behavior (correct)
  • The defendant should have known that valium would cause reckless behavior
  • Valium is a dangerous drug that can lead to reckless behavior
  • The defendant's actions were entirely voluntary

    • When can a defendant deny an offence due to intoxication?

    <p>When they voluntarily take a dangerous intoxicant</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of R v Kingston in the context of intoxication and criminal law?

    <p>It held that a drunken intention is still an intention</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relationship between intoxication and Mens Rea?

    <p>Intoxication is a denial of Mens Rea</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the condition for D's intoxication to be considered voluntary?

    <p>D drank a large amount of wine that his friend gave him</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What are the four elements required for D to be liable due to intoxication?

    <p>D's intoxication was voluntary, D's offence is of basic intent, D's substance is dangerous, and D's lack of MR is due to intoxication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the effect of D's voluntary intoxication on liability for a basic intent offence?

    <p>D's voluntary intoxication replaces the absent MR</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case R v Harris?

    <p>Intoxication must be voluntary for prior fault to be found</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?

    <p>Basic intent offences require recklessness, while specific intent offences require MR</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case AG for Nothern Ireland v Gallagher?

    <p>D's intoxication at T1 was held to be not a substitute for the MR at T2</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for the substance to be considered dangerous?

    <p>The substance must be commonly known to lead to aggression or unpredictability</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case R v Richardson and Irwin?

    <p>D's lack of MR due to intoxication was not a defence for the basic intent offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the effect of D's intoxication on liability for a specific intent offence?

    <p>D's intoxication is a defence for a specific intent offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case R v Hardie?

    <p>Voluntary intoxication with a harmless substance is not blameworthy</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Involuntary intoxication can never be considered as prior fault in criminal law.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant can be liable for a specific intent offence if they voluntarily intoxicate themselves and commit the offence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The defendant's prior fault in intoxication can be considered as Mens Rea for a basic intent offence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who commits a basic intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The case of R v Harris established that psychosis induced from withdrawal from alcohol is equivalent to voluntary intoxication.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The defendant's lack of Mens Rea due to intoxication can be a defence for a specific intent offence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who voluntarily intoxicates themselves to commit a specific intent offence can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The court's focus in 'Dutch Courage' cases is on the defendant's Mens Rea at the time of intoxication.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant's intoxication with a harmless substance can be considered as prior fault in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The case of R v Richardson and Irwin established that the defendant's lack of Mens Rea due to intoxication can be a defence for a basic intent offence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant's intoxication is always considered a defence in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Kingston, the court ruled that a drunken intention is not an intention.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Hardie, the defendant was found liable for arson with intention or recklessness as to endangerment of life.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant's intoxication will always lead to a lack of Mens Rea.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Only dangerous drugs can lead to a denial of Mens Rea due to intoxication.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Voluntary intoxication can lead to a defence in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the context of criminal law, what is intoxication considered as?

    <p>A denial of Mens Rea</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was the court's ruling in R v Kingston regarding a drunken intention?

    <p>A drunken intention is still an intention</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for a defendant's intoxication to be considered voluntary?

    <p>The defendant must have voluntarily taken a dangerous substance</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of R v Hardie in the context of intoxication and criminal law?

    <p>It established that valium is not a dangerous drug and the defendant had no reason to believe it would lead to actions it caused</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the effect of a defendant's intoxication on liability for a specific intent offence?

    <p>The defendant's intoxication can be a denial of Mens Rea</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relationship between intoxication and Mens Rea?

    <p>Intoxication can be a denial of Mens Rea if it was voluntary</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Can a defendant who voluntarily intoxicates themselves to commit a specific intent offence be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence?

    <p>Yes, as they have formed a prior intention to commit the offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the focus of the court in 'Dutch Courage' cases?

    <p>The defendant's Mens Rea at the time of intoxication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Can a defendant's lack of Mens Rea due to intoxication be a defence for a specific intent offence?

    <p>Yes, as they lacked the necessary Mens Rea due to their intoxicated state</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of intoxication in the context of criminal law?

    <p>It is a denial of Mens Rea</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the outcome for a defendant who commits a basic intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated?

    <p>They are liable for the offence, and their intoxication is considered as a substitute for the Mens Rea they lacked</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the 'Dutch Courage' cases in the context of intoxication and criminal law?

    <p>The defendant's blameworthy conduct is not merely their choice to become voluntarily intoxicated, but their intention to commit the offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the outcome for a defendant who commits a specific intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated?

    <p>They are liable for the offence, but only if they formed a Mens Rea for the offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for a substance to be considered dangerous in the context of intoxication and criminal law?

    <p>The substance must be commonly known to lead to aggression or unpredictability</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relationship between intoxication and prior fault in criminal law?

    <p>Intoxication can be considered as prior fault if it is voluntary and the substance is dangerous</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the outcome for a defendant who lacks Mens Rea due to involuntary intoxication?

    <p>They are not liable for the offence, and their intoxication is considered a defence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case of R v Allen in the context of intoxication and criminal law?

    <p>The court established that a defendant's prior fault in intoxication can be considered as Mens Rea for a basic intent offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?

    <p>Basic intent offences are those that can be satisfied by recklessness, while specific intent offences require a specific intention</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for a defendant to be liable due to intoxication?

    <p>The defendant's intoxication must be voluntary, the substance must be dangerous, and the offence must be of basic intent</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the outcome for a defendant who becomes intoxicated at T1 in order to commit a specific intent offence at T2?

    <p>The defendant's blameworthy conduct is not merely their choice to become voluntarily intoxicated, but their intention to commit the offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Intoxication is a full defence in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A drunken intention is still considered an intention in criminal law.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who takes a harmless substance and commits an offence can be liable for that offence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Voluntary intoxication can never be a defence in criminal law.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The court's focus in 'Dutch Courage' cases is on the defendant's actions prior to intoxication.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Involuntary intoxication can be a defence in criminal law.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who commits a specific intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated can be liable for that offence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Only dangerous drugs can lead to a denial of mens rea due to intoxication.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant's lack of mens rea due to intoxication can never be a defence in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Intoxication is always considered a denial of mens rea in criminal law.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In a specific intent offence, a defendant's intoxication can replace the absent Mens Rea.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who voluntarily intoxicates themselves to commit a specific intent offence can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Involuntary intoxication can be considered as prior fault in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who lacks Mens Rea due to involuntary intoxication can still be liable for a basic intent offence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Voluntary intoxication with a harmless substance can be considered as prior fault in criminal law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who commits a basic intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    R v Harris established that psychosis induced from withdrawal from alcohol is equivalent to voluntary intoxication.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Kingston, the court ruled that a defendant's drunken intention can be considered as Mens Rea.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant's intoxication with a dangerous substance can always lead to a denial of Mens Rea.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The court's focus in 'Dutch Courage' cases is on the defendant's Mens Rea at the time of the offence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Doctrines of Denial of Offence

    • Intoxication, automatism, and insanity can serve as doctrines where defendants (D) claim lack of Mens Rea (MR) for their actions.
    • Intoxication is seen primarily as a denial of MR, rather than a defense.
    • R v Kingston established that even in an intoxicated state, intention remains intention; a drunken intent constitutes MR.
    • R v Hardie ruled that valium is not a dangerous drug, illustrating that lack of blameworthiness requires a dangerous intoxicant.
    • R v Allen highlighted that voluntary consumption of alcohol contributes to liability.

    Grounds for Liability Due to Intoxication

    • Liability is possible when intoxication results from prior fault (D voluntarily intoxicated).
    • Essential elements for liability include:
      • D's intoxication must be voluntary.
      • The offense must be of basic intent, not specific intent.
      • The intoxicant must be dangerous, leading to aggression or unpredictability.
      • D's lack of MR must stem from the intoxication.

    Distinction Between Basic and Specific Intent

    • Basic intent crimes can result in liability if intoxication can replace absent MR.
    • Specific intent focuses solely on whether D had MR at the time of the offense.
    • Examples of basic intent offenses include manslaughter, assault, and criminal damage.
    • Examples of specific intent offenses include murder and robbery.

    Dutch Courage Cases

    • Describes situations where intoxication is sought to commit a specific intent offense.
    • AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher exemplified that intoxicated MR is still considered MR if D planned the harm while intoxicated.

    Definition of Dangerous Intoxicants

    • A dangerous intoxicant is known to cause unpredictability or aggression; examples include alcohol and LSD.
    • Voluntary intoxication with harmless substances does not imply blameworthiness.

    Effect of Intoxication on MR

    • For liability, intoxication must directly cause the lack of MR.
    • R v Richardson and Irwin case involved D's appeal due to being heavily intoxicated; D claimed inability to foresee injury caused by actions while intoxicated.

    Concluding Notes

    • Intoxication serves as a complex legal concept functioning as both a potential denial of MR and a pathway to liability, impacted by the nature of the drug and the intent behind its use.
    • Understanding the nuances of basic vs. specific intent is crucial to interpreting liability outcomes in intoxication cases.### Doctrines Denying Offence
    • Intoxication, automatism, and insanity serve as doctrines where defendants (D) deny an offence by claiming lack of mens rea (MR).
    • Intoxication results in a claim of non-existence of MR due to the affected mental state.
    • Automatism is argued as a defense where D's actions were involuntary, thus lacking MR.
    • Insanity is claimed when a disease of the mind prevents D from forming MR.

    Intoxication as a Denial of Mens Rea

    • Intoxication is frequently viewed as a denial of MR rather than a full defense.
    • The principle asserts that intoxication does not absolve D of responsibility; they claim they did not have the requisite MR due to intoxication.

    Case Law Illustrations

    • R v Kingston:

      • Facts: D was drugged and subsequently assaulted a minor while incapacitated.
      • Legal Outcome: The court determined that an intoxicated intention constitutes an intention; therefore, intoxication does not negate MR. It is up to the prosecution to establish all case elements, not for D to prove innocence.

    • R v Hardie:

      • Facts: D took valium and caused a fire in a wardrobe, leading to charges of arson with the intent to endanger life.
      • Legal Outcome: The court concluded valium was not classified as a dangerous drug, and D had no reasonable expectation that its use would result in harmful actions. Only voluntary consumption of dangerous intoxicants would render D sufficiently blameworthy for MR.
    • Intoxication claimed by D must show that MR is absent; mere drunkenness does not eliminate intention.
    • The prosecution bears the burden to prove the existence of all elements of the offence despite D’s claims of intoxication or insanity.
    • The nature of the intoxicant plays a critical role in determining the presence of MR.

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Test your understanding of criminal law defences, including intoxication, automatism, and insanity, and how they relate to mens rea. Learn about key cases like R v Kingston and how they impact criminal liability.

    More Like This

    Criminal Law Defences
    40 questions

    Criminal Law Defences

    SufficientManganese avatar
    SufficientManganese
    Defences in Criminal Law: Public and Private Defence
    44 questions

    Defences in Criminal Law: Public and Private Defence

    RecommendedKrypton avatar
    RecommendedKrypton
    Criminal Law: Defences Lecture 47-49
    24 questions

    Criminal Law: Defences Lecture 47-49

    RadiantProse avatar
    RadiantProse
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser