levo

Criminal Law: Capacity Defences

Drunken mistake and criticism of the capacity defences

  • 3 things to know
  • Components 2 and 3

Overview

R v O'Grady and section 76(5) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 refusing a drunken mistake in self-defence, why Jaggard v Dickinson sits so awkwardly beside it, and the criticisms the whole area attracts.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

Give one criticism of the requirement that the defendant did not know the act was wrong.

Numbers

Can a drunken mistake be relied on in self-defence?

Numbers

Which case confirmed the approach in R v O'Grady [1987]?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    Can a drunken mistake be relied on in self-defence?

    Model answer

    R v O'Grady [1987] held that a defendant cannot rely on a mistake about the need for force induced by voluntary intoxication. The defendant is judged on the facts as a sober person would have seen them.

  2. 2

    Which case confirmed the approach in R v O'Grady [1987]?

    Model answer

    R v Hatton [2005] confirmed that a drunken mistake cannot support self-defence even on a murder charge. The Court of Appeal applied O'Grady to specific intent offences.

  3. 3

    Which statute now states the rule on drunken mistake in self-defence?

    Model answer

    Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states the rule. Subsection (5) excludes any mistaken belief attributable to voluntary intoxication.

  4. 4

    Why is the rule on drunken mistake criticised?

    Model answer

    The rule denies a defence to a defendant who genuinely believed force was necessary. Critics say it conflicts with the general rule that an honest mistake is judged on the facts as believed.

  5. 5

    Why does Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] sit awkwardly with the rule on drunken mistake?

    Model answer

    Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] allowed a drunken belief in consent for criminal damage. The result depends on the wording of the statutory defence rather than on principle.

  6. 6

    Give one criticism of the M'Naghten rules as a test of insanity.

    Model answer

    The rules date from 1843 and take no account of modern psychiatry. Conditions such as epilepsy and diabetes are classified as insanity although they are not mental illnesses.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Criminal Law: Capacity Defences, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.