AQA A2 Law Unit 3 - Defences - Intoxication

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 09-03-14 15:23

1. What was the conviction in the case of Lipman 1970 and why?

  • Murder, as the defendant had already had the MR before becoming intoxicated
  • Manslaughter, as the defendant was reckless and this is not covered in Intoxicatio
  • Manslaughter with the defence of intoxication, as the defendant took the LSD involuntarily
1 of 9

Other questions in this quiz

2. What type of intent must the crime be, to use intoxication as a defence?

  • Specific Intent
  • Basic Intent

3. Why was there no defence of intoxication in the case of AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher?

  • As they had already developed the MR before intoxication
  • As the defendant brought the knife to kill his wife then got drunk and killed her
  • As the defendant's crime was of basic intent

4. What was outlined in the case of Kingston 1994?

  • Even though his coffee was drugged he still had the relevant MR
  • That he could use the defence of intoxication as he was involuntarily drugged

5. Which case outlines voluntary intoxication and basic intent?

  • R v Lancaster
  • R v Dytham
  • DPP v Majewski 1976
  • DPP v Smith


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »