levo

Criminal Law: Defences

Intoxication by alcohol and by drugs

  • 3 things to know
  • A2 Units 3 and 4

Overview

Recall questions on the specific and basic intent divide, Majewski, drunken intent, the Dutch courage rule, Kingston on involuntary intoxication, prescribed drugs, and an intoxicated mistake about self-defence.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Key term

Distinguish voluntary from involuntary intoxication.

Key term

Distinguish specific intent from basic intent offences.

Key term

What happens to a defendant charged with murder who was too drunk to form any intention?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    Is intoxication a defence in its own right?

    Model answer

    No, intoxication is not a defence but evidence going to whether the defendant in fact formed the mens rea that the offence requires.

  2. 2

    Distinguish voluntary from involuntary intoxication.

    Model answer

    Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant knowingly takes drink or drugs, while involuntary intoxication covers a spiked drink or an unexpected reaction to properly taken medication.

  3. 3

    Distinguish specific intent from basic intent offences.

    Model answer

    A specific intent offence can only be committed intentionally, such as murder or theft, while a basic intent offence can be committed recklessly, such as battery or criminal damage.

  4. 4

    What did DPP v Majewski (1977) decide?

    Model answer

    Voluntary intoxication may negate the mens rea of a specific intent offence, but it is no defence to a crime of basic intent, because becoming intoxicated is itself reckless conduct.

  5. 5

    What happens to a defendant charged with murder who was too drunk to form any intention?

    Model answer

    The specific intent for murder is not proved, but the defendant will normally be convicted of manslaughter, which is the basic intent alternative.

  6. 6

    How does R v Lipman (1970) illustrate that outcome?

    Model answer

    A man who killed his girlfriend while hallucinating on LSD lacked the intent for murder but was convicted of manslaughter.

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.

Law Making in Wales and the UK
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.

Roles v Nathan ( ).
196319411945

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

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

AThe defendant owed the victim a duty of care and breached it.
BThe breach carried a reasonably foreseeable risk of death.
CThe breach caused the death.

Build It gets the exam shape right

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

Pecuniary loss is financial and measurable.
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: 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.