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?

  • 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
  • Murder, as the defendant had already had the MR before becoming intoxicated
1 of 9

Other questions in this quiz

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

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

3. Which case outlines voluntary intoxication and basic intent?

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

4. What does the defendant have to use, to use the defence of intoxication

  • Just legal substances
  • Just alcohol
  • Drink, Drugs or other substances
  • Just Illegal substances

5. 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


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »