1. What does s.55 CJA 2009 cover?
- Mental abnormalities
- Loss of Self Control
- Qualifying triggers
- Intoxication as a Defence
1 of 11
Other questions in this quiz
2. What does Tandy  say about alcoholism giving rise to diminished responsibility?
- It is only capable if it either causes damage to the brain or produces an irresistible craving that consumption is involuntary
- It only becomes a valid defence when you drink habitually
- It's never a valid defence to be an alcoholic due to the support services available
- Defence fails if you are not medically recognised as being an alcoholic
3. In relation to D's substantial impairment of rational judgment, exercise of self control and understanding the nature of D's conduct, what does R v Lloyd (1967) say in regards to impairment?
- It is not a question for neither jury nor judge, but for that of a medical expert in the field to define whether the impairment was more than trivial
- It is a case of the severity of the impairment, insufficient impairment would not count towards a defence
- It is a question for the jury - doesn't have to be total impairment but it must be more than trivial
- It must be considered that it has to be more than trivial but not necessarily that of total impairment or retardation of mental development
4. What does Fenton (1975) say about self-induced intoxication?
- If the taking of a first drink was not involuntary, then the whole of the drinking on that day is not involuntary and as such, the defence will fail due to self induced intoxication.
- Where self induced intoxication is the case, there must be a pre-existing history of alcohol dependency
- Self induced intoxication cannot produce an abnormality of the mind. Intoxication is not an inherent cause
- Alcoholism is not a valid condition where self induced intoxication is involving.
5. Under s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, what reasons can D not be convicted of murder?
- Killing resulted from D's loss of self control, it had a qualifying trigger and whether a person similar to D would have reacted in the same way
- If D was intoxicated at the time of the killing, he/she cannot be convicted of Murder.
- There is no qualifying trigger to make Murder a viable conviction
- The reasonable man should not be applied in the circumstances