Intoxication

HideShow resource information
What is the key case for Intoxication? and what was established in this case?
Majewski: 'reckless course of conduct' therefore provide relevant MR for any basic intent crime while intoxicated
1 of 6
If the D had the MR before the crime was committed will they be able to use the defence of intoxication? If so what case does this come from?
No there will be no defence of intoxication and this comes from the case of Attorney General for N.I v Gallagher
2 of 6
What is said in the case of Lipman?
Voluntary Intoxication + specific intent + no MR = not guilty because it was shown that the D couldnt form the MR for a specific intent crime
3 of 6
'Drunken intent is still intent'. Which case is this quote from?
Kingston - even thoug intoxicated the MR is still relevant
4 of 6
If a D took a legal drug in a legal manner would they be able to use the defence of recklessness? Which case is this?
Hardie: and yes they would because they were never reckless
5 of 6
Does a drunken mistake amount to a defence of intoxication?
No, if force is used through a drunken mistake for self-defence then intoxication cannot be used
6 of 6

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

If the D had the MR before the crime was committed will they be able to use the defence of intoxication? If so what case does this come from?

Back

No there will be no defence of intoxication and this comes from the case of Attorney General for N.I v Gallagher

Card 3

Front

What is said in the case of Lipman?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

'Drunken intent is still intent'. Which case is this quote from?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

If a D took a legal drug in a legal manner would they be able to use the defence of recklessness? Which case is this?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »