Level 13
Level 14

Defences - Intoxication

10 words 0 ignored

Ready to learn       Ready to review

Ignore words

Check the boxes below to ignore/unignore words, then click save at the bottom. Ignored words will never appear in any learning session.

All None

Synoptic Paper
The second exam for Criminal Law: G154. The length of the exam is 90 minutes, and it is comprised of 3 questions. The focus of this exam is the defence of intoxication.
19th June
The date of the synoptic. It is an afternoon exam.
Question One
This will always be on a case. It is worth 16 marks (12 AO2 and 4 AO3), and it is advised that you should spend 15 minutes answering this.
Critical Point
This will always be the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision) of the case you've been asked to explain the significance/importance of. This will allow you to get 3 marks on Question One.
Analytical Point
This is worth 6 marks for Question One. This may comprise the obiter dicta (by the by, everything else discussed to reach the decision) or potentially law reform. It will not be the ratio decidendi.
Linked Case
This is worth 3 marks (on Question One). This may be any case which is relevant to the case in question to show further development of the law - by giving the name, facts and influence it has had on the law, you will acquire 3 marks.
Beard 1920
The first case to identify that some crimes require a 'particular', i.e. specific intent, such as murder. In the case of SICs, intoxication may be a defence, as by becoming intoxicated, your mental capacity has been diminished.
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Dutch courage. Typically, intoxication is available as a defence to crimes of specific intent - however this wouldn't be a desired outcome in this particular outcome. Therefore, it was decided that if D forms an intent while sober, becoming intoxicated to carry out the actus reus of the crime is irrelevant.
Despite D's drink being spiked, any evidence of intent shows that the defence fails. A drugged intent is still an intent.
Described as not being a true defence by sources 2 and 4.