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 Basics
    10 questions

    Criminal Law Basics

    PerfectFresno avatar
    PerfectFresno
    Criminal Law Defenses Quiz
    16 questions

    Criminal Law Defenses Quiz

    EnterprisingTurquoise4467 avatar
    EnterprisingTurquoise4467
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Browser