Criminal Law: Denial of Offence Part 1
52 Questions
2 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 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?

  • 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?

  • 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?

    <p>To deny the existence of MR</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key distinction between intoxication and automatism?

    <p>Intoxication is a denial of MR, while automatism is a denial of voluntary conduct</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the underlying rationale behind the doctrine of insanity?

    <p>That the defendant lacked the required MR due to disease of the mind</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the core principle established by the court in R v Hardie?

    <p>An intoxicated MR is still a valid MR</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for D to be liable due to intoxication?

    <p>4 elements: voluntary intoxication, basic intent offence, dangerous substance, and prior fault</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relevance of Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) in the context of intoxication?

    <p>T1 refers to the time of intoxication, and T2 refers to the time of the offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the court's decision in R v Allen?

    <p>D's intoxication was voluntary</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

    <p>Basic intent offences do not require MR, while specific intent offences do</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the leading case of DPP v Majewski?

    <p>It separated basic intent from specific intent offences</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relevance of the concept of 'prior fault' in the context of intoxication?

    <p>It refers to the defendant's responsibility for being in the intoxicated state</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the court's decision in R v Harris?

    <p>D's psychosis was attributable to withdrawal from alcohol</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case of R v Kingston?

    <p>D still formed MR despite involuntary intoxication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relationship between intoxication and MR?

    <p>Intoxication sometimes invalidates MR</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the main distinction between 'basic intent' and 'specific intent' offences?

    <p>Basic intent offences can be satisfied by recklessness, whereas specific intent offences require a higher level of intention.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Heard, what was the defendant charged with?

    <p>Sexual assault</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key feature of a 'Dutch courage' case?

    <p>The defendant becomes intoxicated in order to commit the offence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for voluntary intoxication to be considered 'blameworthy'?

    <p>The defendant's intoxication must be the result of prior fault.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Gallagher, what was the court's focus in regards to the defendant's intoxication?

    <p>The defendant's MR at the time of the offence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key element in determining whether a substance is 'dangerous' in the context of intoxication?

    <p>The substance's potential to cause unpredictability and/or aggression.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the correct question for intoxication rules in basic intent offences?

    <p>Would the defendant have foreseen the risk of injury if sober?</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

    <p>It established that the correct question for intoxication rules is whether the defendant would have foreseen the risk of injury if sober.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the main distinction between basic intent offences and specific intent offences in terms of recklessness?

    <p>Basic intent offences can be satisfied by recklessness, whereas specific intent offences require a higher level of intention.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the result if the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks MR for a specific intent offence?

    <p>The defendant is not liable for the specific intent offence, but is liable for a basic intent offence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Kingston, the defendant was accused of blackmailing a 15-year-old boy.

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

    Intoxication is a complete defence to criminal liability.

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

    Under the doctrine of intoxication, the defendant's intoxication is only considered voluntary if they were forced to consume the intoxicating substance.

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

    A defendant who Denis to have the required mens rea due to intoxication can rely on the defence of insanity.

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

    In cases of intoxication, the court focuses on whether the defendant had the required mens rea at the time of the offence.

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

    Automatism is a type of insanity defence.

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

    In R v Hardie, the court held that Valium was a dangerous drug.

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

    Intoxication can only increase liability where there is no prior fault.

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

    The court in R v Allen held that the defendant's intoxication was involuntary.

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

    For specific intent offences, intoxication can replace the absent mens rea.

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

    The doctrine of intoxication is primarily used to excuse defendants from liability.

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

    In R v Harris, the court held that the defendant's psychosis was attributable to previous intoxication.

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

    The court in DPP v Majewski held that intoxication can never be a defence to a crime.

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

    Prior fault requires that the defendant be aware of the risks of intoxication.

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

    Time 1 (T1) refers to the time when the defendant commits the offence.

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

    The core principle established by the court is that an intoxicated MR is never a valid MR.

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

    Involuntary intoxication can be a substitute for the mens rea lacking at the time of the conduct.

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

    R v Heard established that sexual assault is a specific intent offence.

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

    The court in R v Gallagher held that the defendant's intoxication was not a substitute for the mens rea for murder.

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

    A defendant who is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks mens rea for a specific intent offence is liable for the offence.

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

    The concept of 'prior fault' is only relevant in the context of specific intent offences.

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

    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.

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

    A substance is considered 'dangerous' if it is commonly known to cause unpredictability and aggression when taken.

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

    The doctrine of intoxication is only applicable in cases where the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated.

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

    In basic intent offences, the defendant's intoxication can be considered as part of the mens rea.

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

    The court in R v Hardie established that taking a harmless substance can be considered blameworthy.

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

    More Like This

    Criminal Law Defenses Quiz
    16 questions

    Criminal Law Defenses Quiz

    EnterprisingTurquoise4467 avatar
    EnterprisingTurquoise4467
    Criminal Law: Culpability and Defenses
    48 questions
    Criminal Law - Threats and Defenses
    46 questions
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Browser