Intoxication Defence
- Created by: Bonniebrooksx
- Created on: 14-06-16 15:00
| H | F | G | Y | C | S | H | Y | Q | X | S | D | S | V | Q | C | R | H | S | C | C |
| T | I | X | U | N | R | N | R | C | Y | N | C | C | D | G | E | M | J | M | N | X |
| N | C | D | U | T | C | H | C | O | U | R | A | G | E | U | F | F | C | Q | J | B |
| E | V | U | S | M | W | D | G | K | W | O | O | R | Q | J | I | H | Y | J | J | A |
| M | R | V | H | A | R | D | I | E | J | U | D | G | E | M | E | N | T | D | X | A |
| G | Y | N | Q | P | J | T | B | C | T | F | U | F | B | V | D | G | D | M | W | Y |
| D | C | W | L | K | B | X | N | U | H | Y | E | F | X | F | H | M | J | C | I | L |
| U | H | L | A | X | K | F | M | X | N | S | O | G | G | U | L | Y | Y | U | P | N |
| J | O | Q | R | V | L | I | P | M | A | N | J | U | D | G | E | M | E | N | T | M |
| N | R | F | I | W | O | Q | A | O | K | R | G | Y | X | F | W | Q | G | V | G | B |
| O | L | Q | E | S | K | V | M | E | N | B | O | U | G | Y | J | Q | L | J | G | R |
| T | I | K | B | Q | C | Y | O | I | E | S | P | P | P | Q | E | N | U | W | M | R |
| S | Q | O | Q | J | L | I | E | Y | P | I | A | M | F | Q | R | F | L | I | I | R |
| G | K | X | V | C | Y | D | F | M | P | W | L | B | F | R | N | S | T | R | T | E |
| N | N | K | F | A | W | X | X | G | M | D | A | C | Q | M | G | H | W | A | Y | L |
| I | N | T | O | X | I | C | A | T | I | O | N | O | V | E | R | V | I | E | W | L |
| K | N | B | A | S | I | C | I | N | T | E | N | T | C | R | I | M | E | S | Q | R |
| V | Q | Q | S | H | C | C | O | H | W | R | E | R | A | G | R | W | P | O | S | R |
| R | F | G | D | J | Y | U | N | W | D | O | E | F | B | J | H | L | K | F | S | Q |
| V | I | V | L | U | N | M | Y | O | X | K | L | M | A | M | A | E | L | K | Q | G |
| F | K | X | S | T | U | B | S | M | Y | O | D | N | O | C | D | W | H | N | V | L |
Clues
- , for any crime where recklessness is sufficient mens rea (crimes of basic intent), intoxication will not normally afford a defence, since the taking of excessive quantities of alcohol or drugs is in itself reckless. (5, 6, 6)
- . If the desire to commit the crime was present at the time of the crime then the mens rea is proved and there is no defence that the drink/drugs ‘caused’ the accused to carry out the crime. (1, 1, 8, 8)
- Applies in the situation whereby D, having resolved to commit an offence requiring specific intent whilst sober, the deliberately becomes intoxicated in order to provide himself with ‘Dutch couage’ before carrying out the offence. (5, 7)
- The Court of Appeal stated that although intoxication was not usually a defence for such a crime, if the drug taken was one that normally calms a person down (as valium does) (1, 1, 6, 9)
- The influence of drugs was so strong that Lipman could not have intended to kill his girlfriend, therefore, he could not be guilty of murder. However, the charge was reduced to manslaughter and he was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter (1, 1, 6, 9)
- The only times where intoxication can be used as a defence is where the accused can prove that it led to a disease of the mind (insanity is then the defence); or where s/he was so intoxicated that s/he could not have the necessary mens rea. (12, 8)
Comments
No comments have yet been made