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
Similar Law resources: