72 Questions
What is intoxication considered as in the context of criminal law?
A denial of Mens Rea
In R v Kingston, what was the court's ruling regarding a drunken intention?
A drunken intention is still an intention
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
When can a defendant deny an offence due to intoxication?
When they voluntarily take a dangerous intoxicant
What is the significance of R v Kingston in the context of intoxication and criminal law?
It held that a drunken intention is still an intention
What is the relationship between intoxication and Mens Rea?
Intoxication is a denial of Mens Rea
What is the condition for D's intoxication to be considered voluntary?
D drank a large amount of wine that his friend gave him
What are the four elements required for D to be liable due to intoxication?
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
What is the effect of D's voluntary intoxication on liability for a basic intent offence?
D's voluntary intoxication replaces the absent MR
What is the significance of the case R v Harris?
Intoxication must be voluntary for prior fault to be found
What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?
Basic intent offences require recklessness, while specific intent offences require MR
What is the significance of the case AG for Nothern Ireland v Gallagher?
D's intoxication at T1 was held to be not a substitute for the MR at T2
What is required for the substance to be considered dangerous?
The substance must be commonly known to lead to aggression or unpredictability
What is the significance of the case R v Richardson and Irwin?
D's lack of MR due to intoxication was not a defence for the basic intent offence
What is the effect of D's intoxication on liability for a specific intent offence?
D's intoxication is a defence for a specific intent offence
What is the significance of the case R v Hardie?
Voluntary intoxication with a harmless substance is not blameworthy
Involuntary intoxication can never be considered as prior fault in criminal law.
True
A defendant can be liable for a specific intent offence if they voluntarily intoxicate themselves and commit the offence.
False
The defendant's prior fault in intoxication can be considered as Mens Rea for a basic intent offence.
True
A defendant who commits a basic intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.
False
The case of R v Harris established that psychosis induced from withdrawal from alcohol is equivalent to voluntary intoxication.
False
The defendant's lack of Mens Rea due to intoxication can be a defence for a specific intent offence.
True
A defendant who voluntarily intoxicates themselves to commit a specific intent offence can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.
True
The court's focus in 'Dutch Courage' cases is on the defendant's Mens Rea at the time of intoxication.
False
A defendant's intoxication with a harmless substance can be considered as prior fault in criminal law.
False
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.
False
A defendant's intoxication is always considered a defence in criminal law.
False
In R v Kingston, the court ruled that a drunken intention is not an intention.
False
In R v Hardie, the defendant was found liable for arson with intention or recklessness as to endangerment of life.
True
A defendant's intoxication will always lead to a lack of Mens Rea.
False
Only dangerous drugs can lead to a denial of Mens Rea due to intoxication.
True
Voluntary intoxication can lead to a defence in criminal law.
False
In the context of criminal law, what is intoxication considered as?
A denial of Mens Rea
What was the court's ruling in R v Kingston regarding a drunken intention?
A drunken intention is still an intention
What is required for a defendant's intoxication to be considered voluntary?
The defendant must have voluntarily taken a dangerous substance
What is the significance of R v Hardie in the context of intoxication and criminal law?
It established that valium is not a dangerous drug and the defendant had no reason to believe it would lead to actions it caused
What is the effect of a defendant's intoxication on liability for a specific intent offence?
The defendant's intoxication can be a denial of Mens Rea
What is the relationship between intoxication and Mens Rea?
Intoxication can be a denial of Mens Rea if it was voluntary
Can a defendant who voluntarily intoxicates themselves to commit a specific intent offence be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence?
Yes, as they have formed a prior intention to commit the offence
What is the focus of the court in 'Dutch Courage' cases?
The defendant's Mens Rea at the time of intoxication
Can a defendant's lack of Mens Rea due to intoxication be a defence for a specific intent offence?
Yes, as they lacked the necessary Mens Rea due to their intoxicated state
What is the significance of intoxication in the context of criminal law?
It is a denial of Mens Rea
What is the outcome for a defendant who commits a basic intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated?
They are liable for the offence, and their intoxication is considered as a substitute for the Mens Rea they lacked
What is the significance of the 'Dutch Courage' cases in the context of intoxication and criminal law?
The defendant's blameworthy conduct is not merely their choice to become voluntarily intoxicated, but their intention to commit the offence
What is the outcome for a defendant who commits a specific intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated?
They are liable for the offence, but only if they formed a Mens Rea for the offence
What is required for a substance to be considered dangerous in the context of intoxication and criminal law?
The substance must be commonly known to lead to aggression or unpredictability
What is the relationship between intoxication and prior fault in criminal law?
Intoxication can be considered as prior fault if it is voluntary and the substance is dangerous
What is the outcome for a defendant who lacks Mens Rea due to involuntary intoxication?
They are not liable for the offence, and their intoxication is considered a defence
What is the significance of the case of R v Allen in the context of intoxication and criminal law?
The court established that a defendant's prior fault in intoxication can be considered as Mens Rea for a basic intent offence
What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?
Basic intent offences are those that can be satisfied by recklessness, while specific intent offences require a specific intention
What is required for a defendant to be liable due to intoxication?
The defendant's intoxication must be voluntary, the substance must be dangerous, and the offence must be of basic intent
What is the outcome for a defendant who becomes intoxicated at T1 in order to commit a specific intent offence at T2?
The defendant's blameworthy conduct is not merely their choice to become voluntarily intoxicated, but their intention to commit the offence
Intoxication is a full defence in criminal law.
False
A drunken intention is still considered an intention in criminal law.
True
A defendant who takes a harmless substance and commits an offence can be liable for that offence.
True
Voluntary intoxication can never be a defence in criminal law.
True
The court's focus in 'Dutch Courage' cases is on the defendant's actions prior to intoxication.
False
Involuntary intoxication can be a defence in criminal law.
True
A defendant who commits a specific intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated can be liable for that offence.
True
Only dangerous drugs can lead to a denial of mens rea due to intoxication.
False
A defendant's lack of mens rea due to intoxication can never be a defence in criminal law.
False
Intoxication is always considered a denial of mens rea in criminal law.
True
In a specific intent offence, a defendant's intoxication can replace the absent Mens Rea.
False
A defendant who voluntarily intoxicates themselves to commit a specific intent offence can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.
False
Involuntary intoxication can be considered as prior fault in criminal law.
False
A defendant who lacks Mens Rea due to involuntary intoxication can still be liable for a basic intent offence.
False
Voluntary intoxication with a harmless substance can be considered as prior fault in criminal law.
False
A defendant who commits a basic intent offence while voluntarily intoxicated can be considered as having formed a Mens Rea for the offence.
True
R v Harris established that psychosis induced from withdrawal from alcohol is equivalent to voluntary intoxication.
False
In R v Kingston, the court ruled that a defendant's drunken intention can be considered as Mens Rea.
True
A defendant's intoxication with a dangerous substance can always lead to a denial of Mens Rea.
False
The court's focus in 'Dutch Courage' cases is on the defendant's Mens Rea at the time of the offence.
False
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.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
