Other questions in this quiz

2. Which case outlines voluntary intoxication and basic intent?

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

3. Why can't the defence of intoxication be used if the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated?

  • As they have both the AR and MR of the crime
  • As they have the relevant Mens Rea for the offence whilst intoxicated
  • As they take on responsibility at the time of consumption

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. What case outlines Voluntary/ Specific intent?

  • DPP v James
  • R v Dica
  • Sheeman & Moore (1975)
  • Lamb v Landcaster

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »