Podcast
Questions and Answers
What is the general approach to denying an offence?
What is the general approach to denying an offence?
- By accepting the offence but claiming mitigation
- By using standard rules and offence definitions (correct)
- By claiming the absence of a specific doctrine
- By denying the existence of the offence
What is the main difference between intoxication and the other doctrines?
What is the main difference between intoxication and the other doctrines?
- It is a full defence, while the others are denials of MR
- It is a denial of AR and MR, while the others are denials of MR
- It is a denial of AR, while the others are denials of MR
- It is a denial of MR, while the others are full defences (correct)
In R v Kingston, what was the defendant accused of?
In R v Kingston, what was the defendant accused of?
- Taking compromising photos of a 15-year-old boy
- Indecently assaulting a 15-year-old boy while asleep (correct)
- Drugging and raping a 15-year-old boy
- Blackmailing a 15-year-old boy
What is the primary purpose of the doctrine of intoxication?
What is the primary purpose of the doctrine of intoxication?
What is the key distinction between intoxication and automatism?
What is the key distinction between intoxication and automatism?
What is the underlying rationale behind the doctrine of insanity?
What is the underlying rationale behind the doctrine of insanity?
What is the core principle established by the court in R v Hardie?
What is the core principle established by the court in R v Hardie?
What is required for D to be liable due to intoxication?
What is required for D to be liable due to intoxication?
What is the relevance of Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) in the context of intoxication?
What is the relevance of Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) in the context of intoxication?
What is the court's decision in R v Allen?
What is the court's decision in R v Allen?
What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?
What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?
What is the significance of the leading case of DPP v Majewski?
What is the significance of the leading case of DPP v Majewski?
What is the relevance of the concept of 'prior fault' in the context of intoxication?
What is the relevance of the concept of 'prior fault' in the context of intoxication?
What is the court's decision in R v Harris?
What is the court's decision in R v Harris?
What is the significance of the case of R v Kingston?
What is the significance of the case of R v Kingston?
What is the relationship between intoxication and MR?
What is the relationship between intoxication and MR?
What is the main distinction between 'basic intent' and 'specific intent' offences?
What is the main distinction between 'basic intent' and 'specific intent' offences?
In R v Heard, what was the defendant charged with?
In R v Heard, what was the defendant charged with?
What is the key feature of a 'Dutch courage' case?
What is the key feature of a 'Dutch courage' case?
What is required for voluntary intoxication to be considered 'blameworthy'?
What is required for voluntary intoxication to be considered 'blameworthy'?
In R v Gallagher, what was the court's focus in regards to the defendant's intoxication?
In R v Gallagher, what was the court's focus in regards to the defendant's intoxication?
What is the key element in determining whether a substance is 'dangerous' in the context of intoxication?
What is the key element in determining whether a substance is 'dangerous' in the context of intoxication?
What is the correct question for intoxication rules in basic intent offences?
What is the correct question for intoxication rules in basic intent offences?
What is the significance of the case R v Richardson and Irwin?
What is the significance of the case R v Richardson and Irwin?
What is the main distinction between basic intent offences and specific intent offences in terms of recklessness?
What is the main distinction between basic intent offences and specific intent offences in terms of recklessness?
What is the result if the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks MR for a specific intent offence?
What is the result if the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks MR for a specific intent offence?
In R v Kingston, the defendant was accused of blackmailing a 15-year-old boy.
In R v Kingston, the defendant was accused of blackmailing a 15-year-old boy.
Intoxication is a complete defence to criminal liability.
Intoxication is a complete defence to criminal liability.
Under the doctrine of intoxication, the defendant's intoxication is only considered voluntary if they were forced to consume the intoxicating substance.
Under the doctrine of intoxication, the defendant's intoxication is only considered voluntary if they were forced to consume the intoxicating substance.
A defendant who Denis to have the required mens rea due to intoxication can rely on the defence of insanity.
A defendant who Denis to have the required mens rea due to intoxication can rely on the defence of insanity.
In cases of intoxication, the court focuses on whether the defendant had the required mens rea at the time of the offence.
In cases of intoxication, the court focuses on whether the defendant had the required mens rea at the time of the offence.
Automatism is a type of insanity defence.
Automatism is a type of insanity defence.
In R v Hardie, the court held that Valium was a dangerous drug.
In R v Hardie, the court held that Valium was a dangerous drug.
Intoxication can only increase liability where there is no prior fault.
Intoxication can only increase liability where there is no prior fault.
The court in R v Allen held that the defendant's intoxication was involuntary.
The court in R v Allen held that the defendant's intoxication was involuntary.
For specific intent offences, intoxication can replace the absent mens rea.
For specific intent offences, intoxication can replace the absent mens rea.
The doctrine of intoxication is primarily used to excuse defendants from liability.
The doctrine of intoxication is primarily used to excuse defendants from liability.
In R v Harris, the court held that the defendant's psychosis was attributable to previous intoxication.
In R v Harris, the court held that the defendant's psychosis was attributable to previous intoxication.
The court in DPP v Majewski held that intoxication can never be a defence to a crime.
The court in DPP v Majewski held that intoxication can never be a defence to a crime.
Prior fault requires that the defendant be aware of the risks of intoxication.
Prior fault requires that the defendant be aware of the risks of intoxication.
Time 1 (T1) refers to the time when the defendant commits the offence.
Time 1 (T1) refers to the time when the defendant commits the offence.
The core principle established by the court is that an intoxicated MR is never a valid MR.
The core principle established by the court is that an intoxicated MR is never a valid MR.
Involuntary intoxication can be a substitute for the mens rea lacking at the time of the conduct.
Involuntary intoxication can be a substitute for the mens rea lacking at the time of the conduct.
R v Heard established that sexual assault is a specific intent offence.
R v Heard established that sexual assault is a specific intent offence.
The court in R v Gallagher held that the defendant's intoxication was not a substitute for the mens rea for murder.
The court in R v Gallagher held that the defendant's intoxication was not a substitute for the mens rea for murder.
A defendant who is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks mens rea for a specific intent offence is liable for the offence.
A defendant who is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks mens rea for a specific intent offence is liable for the offence.
The concept of 'prior fault' is only relevant in the context of specific intent offences.
The concept of 'prior fault' is only relevant in the context of specific intent offences.
The court in R v Richardson and Irwin held that the defendant's intoxication was a substitute for the mens rea for maliciously inflicting GBH.
The court in R v Richardson and Irwin held that the defendant's intoxication was a substitute for the mens rea for maliciously inflicting GBH.
A substance is considered 'dangerous' if it is commonly known to cause unpredictability and aggression when taken.
A substance is considered 'dangerous' if it is commonly known to cause unpredictability and aggression when taken.
The doctrine of intoxication is only applicable in cases where the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated.
The doctrine of intoxication is only applicable in cases where the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated.
In basic intent offences, the defendant's intoxication can be considered as part of the mens rea.
In basic intent offences, the defendant's intoxication can be considered as part of the mens rea.
The court in R v Hardie established that taking a harmless substance can be considered blameworthy.
The court in R v Hardie established that taking a harmless substance can be considered blameworthy.
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
