AQA A2 Law Unit 3 - Defences - Intoxication
- Created by: Amy
- Created on: 09-03-14 15:23
Other questions in this quiz
2. 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
3. What case outlines Voluntary/ Specific intent?
- R v Dica
- Sheeman & Moore (1975)
- DPP v James
- Lamb v Landcaster
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. 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
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made