Flashcards
Criminal intoxication and consent
Cards in this deck (40)
- 1Woolmington (1935)Burden of proof case - prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2R v Bennett (1995)Judge is obliged to direct the jury on intoxication. R'ble jury might conc r'ble poss that accused didn't form MR
- 3R v Beard (1920)Had been thought that intox could only be defence only if rendered incapable of MR
- 4R v Pordage (1975)Q is not whether def was incapable of forming MR but whether even if still capable he did.
If prosecution can show def formed MR despite intox then intox will not assist. - 5R v Kingston (1995)Paedophile acted on desire because he was drugged. Invol intox.
H of L found liable if he had still form MR when intox no defence to plead he wouldn't have done it sober. - 6Intoxication negating MR1. Involuntarily - spiking or lacing
2. Voluntarily taken drugs but in bona fide pursuance of medical treatment
3. Non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily.
4. Specific intent crimes - 7Three questions to ask to negate MR1. Vol or invol?
2. .Dangerous drug/alc or non-dangerous drug?
3. Crime of basic or specific intent? - 8R v Allen (1988)If aware of drinking but don't realise the strength of what you are drinking this is not a defence.
- 9DPP v Majewski (1977)H of L - vol intox could be defence for specific intent. Where intox negated MR for specific intent but not a basic intent.
Getting drunk is reckless course of conduct & recklessness is enough to = MR in assaults - 10R v Coley, McGhee, and Harris (2013)Would defendant have seen the risk had he not been intox?
- 11R v GIf jury is sure the def would have been aware of the risk if he had been sober, first stage is satisfied.
- 12R v Heard (2007)Proof of state of mind addressing something beyond prohibited act itself (consequences).
Obiter - 13Majewski methodAny offence which may be committed recklessly ought to be held to be an offence of basic intent.
- 14Specific Intent- Murder
- S. 18 OAPA
- Theft
- Robbery
- s. 9 (1) (a) and (b) except causing GBH
- s. 2 & 3 Criminal Damage
Attempt and conspiracy - 15Basic intent- Unlawful act and gross neg manslaughter
- s. 20 OAPA
- Assault or battery
- ABH
- s. 9 (1) (b) causing GBH element
s. 1 (1) and s. 1 (2) Criminal Damage - 16R v Hardie (1985)Drugs in 2 cats:
1. Classed with alcohol when common knowledge that drug is liable to cause aggression etc.
2. If no common knowledge classed separately - 17R v Hardie (1985)Valium taken to calm nerves when leaving girlfriend. Set fire to her flat. Court of appeal allowed appeal as jury had been directed that V should be treated as drink.
- 18R v AsmelashLoss of self-control:
Normal person with normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint. Drunken person can use this defence. - 19Diminished responsibilityIntox is no bar to a plea of diminished responsibility. Jury - suffering abnormality of mental functioning.
- 20Duress and duress of circsMust have a reasonable belief that he was under threat. The reasonable man is never drunk.
- 21Self-defenceDrunken mistake that he needs to use self-defence cannot be relied on.
- 22R v Richardson and Irwin (1999)Drunken uni students dropped friend off balcony. Appeal upheld jury should have been directed:
1 - If jury satisfied victim consented to accident, this would be defence
2 - Jury should have been allowed to consider whether D believed consent even if wrong due to intox. - 23R v Aitken (1992)Similar conclusion to R v Richardson and Irwin
- 24Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)If there is an honest belief defence available def can use even if belief was due to intox.
- 25R v Brown (1994)Divided judgment: 2 - consent = defence 1 lack of consent = offence.
2 elements to consider: whether victim consented and whether def believed victim consented. - 26AG's Reference (No. 6) (1980)General rule consent defence is only available to assault/battery.
s. 47 - most fights unlawful regardless of consent. - 27R v Brown (1994)Sadomasochistic injuries for sexual pleasure. Court held that defence of consent not available unless one of the accepted 'good reasons'.
- 28R v Meachen (2006)Extended consent offence even where ABH + is caused:
Def intended only to commit battery with consent of victim and didn't see risk of ABH. - 29R v Barnes (2005)In organised sport if sufficiently grave properly to be categorised as criminal then criminal prosecution.
Jury consider: contact had been so obv late and/or violent that wasn't to be seen as instinctive, error or misjudgment in heat of game. - 30R v Billinghurst (1978)Off ball punch to the face in rugby cannot have the consent defence.
- 31R v Jones (1986)Boys in youth club throw 2 in the air. Ct of App held that they ought to be able to raise consent issue boys have always played rough.
See R v Aitken - 32R v Aitken (1992)Drunken RAF officers setting fire to flame-retardent suits. Conviction quashed relying on Jones.
- 33R v Wilson (1997)Branding initials on wife buttocks with hot knife. Seen as no different to tattooing.
- 34R v Dica (2004)Consent to risk of contracting HIV then defendant has defence under charge of s. 20. Not possible to consent to deliberate infection as cannot consent to GBH.
- 35R v Brown (Sadomasochism decided by consideration of policy & public interest. For parliament to declare them lawful.
- 36R v Boyea (1992)Fisting - didn't intend level of harm but consent not allowed.
- 37R v Emmett (1999)Setting fire to breasts/suffocating fiancee for sexual pleasure - no defence of consent
- 38R v Slingsby (1995)Fisting wearing ring, cutting and causing death from septicaemia. No risk foreseen. Acquitted of manslaughter - no MR for assault or battery.
- 39R v Hopley (1860)Defence of reasonable chastisement now open to challenge
- 40R v H (2002)Reasonable chastisement must look at nature, context and duration...
Information
- Description
- Criminal Law Flashcards on Criminal intoxication and consent , created by Laura Millward on 05/11/2017.
- Created by
- Laura Millward
- Views
- 2
- Tags
- Rating