Flashcards
DEFENCES: intoxication
Flashcards do conjunto (16)
- 1DPP V BEARD (1920) (specific intent: not formed MR- drunkenness should be considered)D was charged with murder but put forward the defence of intoxication and said he was unable to form the mens rea. The Judge stated "where specific intent is an essential element in an offence, evidence of drunkenness that shows the D was in capable of forming intent should be considered in determining intention"
- 2SHEEHAN AND MOORE (1975) (specific intent: not formed MR)D's were drunk and poured petrol over a tramp and set him alight, they didn't have the mens rea to kill or cause GBH. Guilty of manslaughter as this is a crime of basic intent
- 3LIPMAN (1970) (specific intent: not formed MR- can be used for murder but not manslaughter)D took LSD and was hallucinating. He believed he was being attacked by snakes and killed his girlfriend by choking her with bed sheets. It was held that intoxication could be used to demonstrate he lacked the mens rea for murder as it's a crime of specific intent, however it couldn't be used for manslaughter as this is a crime of basic intent
- 4A-G N.IRELAND V GALLAGHER (1963) (specific intent: drunken intent is still intent)Where D has MR for the act despite being intoxicated then he is still guilty
- 5DPP V MAJWESKI (1977) (basic intent: recklessness)D consumed alcohol and drugs and attacked the landlord of a pub. D also attacked police officers. The Lords held that becoming intoxicated is reckless and recklessness is sufficient for the MR is assault cases
- 6R V RICHARDSON AND IRWIN (1999) (basic intent: subjective test for recklessness)2 students lifted another over a balcony and dropped him 12ft causing serious injuries. It was held that the question wasn't what another person would've foreseen but what the D himself would've foreseen, had they been sober
- 7KINGSTON (1994) (involuntary intoxication: drugged intent is still intent)D was drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him. He was shown a sleeping 15 year old boy and invited to abuse him. D did so and was photographed. The conviction of indecent assault was upheld and it was held that if the MR was firmed the defence can't be used
- 8R V PEARSON (1835) (involuntary intoxication- no MR not guilty)D attacked V whilst in a drunken state with a rake shank. V died of wounds and injuries caused. It was found that a Co-D had secretly given D drugs so he was unable to form the MR
- 9HARDIE (1985) (involuntary intoxication: can't be guilty of basic intent if not guilty of specific intent as D isn't reckless in getting intoxicated)D was depressed when his gf asked him to move out. He took valium tablets prescribed for someone else as he was told they'd calm him down. He set fire to his wardrobe but didn't know what he was doing due to the drugs. It was held that the jury should've been directed that if as a result of the tablets the D couldn't form MR then they should decide whether taking the tablets was reckless
- 10BAILEY (1983) (involuntary intoxication: involuntary situations)If the substance is taken under medical prescription and not reckless
- 11HARDIE (1985) (involuntary intoxication: involuntary situations)if the substance is commonly known to have a soporific or sedative effect, eg a tranquiliser and there's no recklessness
- 12Allen (1988) (involuntary intoxication: involuntary situations)D consumed homemade wine which was stronger that he thought. He committed sexual assaults and claimed he was too drunk to know what he was doing. He argued it was involuntary as he didn't voluntarily put himself in that position . It was held that the intoxication was voluntary and the offence was basic intent therefore the defence couldn't be used
- 13FOTHERINGHAM (1988) (intoxicated mistake: no defence where the drunk mistake prevents him having an MR fir basic intent crime)D had been out drinking and climbed into bed with a 14 year old babysitter, believing it to be his wife. The conviction for rape was upheld as rape is a basic intent crime and therefore drunken mistake can't be relied upon.
- 14O'GRADY (1987) (intoxicated mistake: D will never have a defence if the mistake involves force used for self defence)D and V drank heavily and fell asleep. The D hit V with a glass ashtray and went back to sleep, when he woke up the V was dead. The C of A upheld the conviction of manslaughter
- 15HATTON (2005) (intoxicated mistake: D will never have a defence if the mistake involves force used for self defence)D was intoxicated and him and the V went to the D's house. In the morning the D found the V dead from injuries. The D said he couldn't remember what had happened and was convicted of murder. The C of A held that the decision in O'Grady also applied to specific intent crimes
- 16JAGGARD V DICKINSON (1980) (intoxicated mistake)D was drunk and thought she went to her friend's house. There was nobody in so she broke a window to get in as she believed her friend would consent. In her drunken state she had mistaken the house and had actually broke into someone else's house. The conviction was quashed
Informações
- Descrição
- AS - Level Law (year 13) FlashCards sobre DEFENCES: intoxication , criado por Lucy Sheard em 03-02-2017.
- Criado por
- Lucy Sheard · fev 2017
- Atualizado
- 3 fev 2017
- Visualizações
- 0
- Avaliação