Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Voluntary intoxication
The key case in this area is DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443. In this case, the defendant was involved in a pub brawl in which he attacked the landlord and was charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47. The trial judge refused to direct the jury that the defendant's drunkenness may constitute a defence. The defendant was convicted and appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeal certified the following question for the House of Lords:

'Whether a defendant may properly be convicted of an assault notwithstanding that, by reason of his self-induced incapacity, he did not intend to do the act alleged to constitute the assault.'

The House of Lords held that voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of specific intent, where the defendant's intoxication negated the mens rea required for the offence charged. However, voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of [...]. Lord Elwyn-Jones said:

'If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any injury he may do while in that condition. His course of conduct by reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition on my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases. The drunkenness is in itself an intrinsic, an integral part of the crime, the other part being the evidence of the unlawful use of force against the victim. Together they add up to criminal recklessness. Self-induced intoxication, however gross and even if it has produced a condition akin to automatism cannot excuse crimes of basic intent ...'

Answer
basic intent

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Voluntary intoxication
The key case in this area is DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443. In this case, the defendant was involved in a pub brawl in which he attacked the landlord and was charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47. The trial judge refused to direct the jury that the defendant's drunkenness may constitute a defence. The defendant was convicted and appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeal certified the following question for the House of Lords:

'Whether a defendant may properly be convicted of an assault notwithstanding that, by reason of his self-induced incapacity, he did not intend to do the act alleged to constitute the assault.'

The House of Lords held that voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of specific intent, where the defendant's intoxication negated the mens rea required for the offence charged. However, voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of [...]. Lord Elwyn-Jones said:

'If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any injury he may do while in that condition. His course of conduct by reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition on my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases. The drunkenness is in itself an intrinsic, an integral part of the crime, the other part being the evidence of the unlawful use of force against the victim. Together they add up to criminal recklessness. Self-induced intoxication, however gross and even if it has produced a condition akin to automatism cannot excuse crimes of basic intent ...'

Answer
?

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Voluntary intoxication
The key case in this area is DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443. In this case, the defendant was involved in a pub brawl in which he attacked the landlord and was charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47. The trial judge refused to direct the jury that the defendant's drunkenness may constitute a defence. The defendant was convicted and appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeal certified the following question for the House of Lords:

'Whether a defendant may properly be convicted of an assault notwithstanding that, by reason of his self-induced incapacity, he did not intend to do the act alleged to constitute the assault.'

The House of Lords held that voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of specific intent, where the defendant's intoxication negated the mens rea required for the offence charged. However, voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of [...]. Lord Elwyn-Jones said:

'If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any injury he may do while in that condition. His course of conduct by reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition on my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases. The drunkenness is in itself an intrinsic, an integral part of the crime, the other part being the evidence of the unlawful use of force against the victim. Together they add up to criminal recklessness. Self-induced intoxication, however gross and even if it has produced a condition akin to automatism cannot excuse crimes of basic intent ...'

Answer
basic intent
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
eld that voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of specific intent, where the defendant's intoxication negated the mens rea required for the offence charged. However, voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of <span>basic intent. Lord Elwyn-Jones said: 'If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by h

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions

Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.