52 Questions
What is the general approach to denying an offence?
By using standard rules and offence definitions
What is the main difference between intoxication and the other doctrines?
It is a denial of MR, while the others are full defences
In R v Kingston, what was the defendant accused of?
Indecently assaulting a 15-year-old boy while asleep
What is the primary purpose of the doctrine of intoxication?
To deny the existence of MR
What is the key distinction between intoxication and automatism?
Intoxication is a denial of MR, while automatism is a denial of voluntary conduct
What is the underlying rationale behind the doctrine of insanity?
That the defendant lacked the required MR due to disease of the mind
What is the core principle established by the court in R v Hardie?
An intoxicated MR is still a valid MR
What is required for D to be liable due to intoxication?
4 elements: voluntary intoxication, basic intent offence, dangerous substance, and prior fault
What is the relevance of Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) in the context of intoxication?
T1 refers to the time of intoxication, and T2 refers to the time of the offence
What is the court's decision in R v Allen?
D's intoxication was voluntary
What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offences?
Basic intent offences do not require MR, while specific intent offences do
What is the significance of the leading case of DPP v Majewski?
It separated basic intent from specific intent offences
What is the relevance of the concept of 'prior fault' in the context of intoxication?
It refers to the defendant's responsibility for being in the intoxicated state
What is the court's decision in R v Harris?
D's psychosis was attributable to withdrawal from alcohol
What is the significance of the case of R v Kingston?
D still formed MR despite involuntary intoxication
What is the relationship between intoxication and MR?
Intoxication sometimes invalidates MR
What is the main distinction between 'basic intent' and 'specific intent' offences?
Basic intent offences can be satisfied by recklessness, whereas specific intent offences require a higher level of intention.
In R v Heard, what was the defendant charged with?
Sexual assault
What is the key feature of a 'Dutch courage' case?
The defendant becomes intoxicated in order to commit the offence.
What is required for voluntary intoxication to be considered 'blameworthy'?
The defendant's intoxication must be the result of prior fault.
In R v Gallagher, what was the court's focus in regards to the defendant's intoxication?
The defendant's MR at the time of the offence.
What is the key element in determining whether a substance is 'dangerous' in the context of intoxication?
The substance's potential to cause unpredictability and/or aggression.
What is the correct question for intoxication rules in basic intent offences?
Would the defendant have foreseen the risk of injury if sober?
What is the significance of the case R v Richardson and Irwin?
It established that the correct question for intoxication rules is whether the defendant would have foreseen the risk of injury if sober.
What is the main distinction between basic intent offences and specific intent offences in terms of recklessness?
Basic intent offences can be satisfied by recklessness, whereas specific intent offences require a higher level of intention.
What is the result if the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks MR for a specific intent offence?
The defendant is not liable for the specific intent offence, but is liable for a basic intent offence.
In R v Kingston, the defendant was accused of blackmailing a 15-year-old boy.
False
Intoxication is a complete defence to criminal liability.
False
Under the doctrine of intoxication, the defendant's intoxication is only considered voluntary if they were forced to consume the intoxicating substance.
False
A defendant who Denis to have the required mens rea due to intoxication can rely on the defence of insanity.
False
In cases of intoxication, the court focuses on whether the defendant had the required mens rea at the time of the offence.
False
Automatism is a type of insanity defence.
False
In R v Hardie, the court held that Valium was a dangerous drug.
False
Intoxication can only increase liability where there is no prior fault.
False
The court in R v Allen held that the defendant's intoxication was involuntary.
False
For specific intent offences, intoxication can replace the absent mens rea.
False
The doctrine of intoxication is primarily used to excuse defendants from liability.
False
In R v Harris, the court held that the defendant's psychosis was attributable to previous intoxication.
False
The court in DPP v Majewski held that intoxication can never be a defence to a crime.
False
Prior fault requires that the defendant be aware of the risks of intoxication.
False
Time 1 (T1) refers to the time when the defendant commits the offence.
False
The core principle established by the court is that an intoxicated MR is never a valid MR.
False
Involuntary intoxication can be a substitute for the mens rea lacking at the time of the conduct.
False
R v Heard established that sexual assault is a specific intent offence.
False
The court in R v Gallagher held that the defendant's intoxication was not a substitute for the mens rea for murder.
True
A defendant who is voluntarily intoxicated and lacks mens rea for a specific intent offence is liable for the offence.
False
The concept of 'prior fault' is only relevant in the context of specific intent offences.
False
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.
False
A substance is considered 'dangerous' if it is commonly known to cause unpredictability and aggression when taken.
True
The doctrine of intoxication is only applicable in cases where the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated.
True
In basic intent offences, the defendant's intoxication can be considered as part of the mens rea.
False
The court in R v Hardie established that taking a harmless substance can be considered blameworthy.
False
This quiz covers the basics of denying an offence in criminal law, including standard rules and offence definitions, as well as specific doctrines such as intoxication and automatism. Learn how to deny an offence using various techniques, including alibi and lack of evidence.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
