Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
R v Kingston 1994
D. commited acts of indecency-he claimed-drugged. Judge-can only b acquitted if drugs caused lack of mens rea at the time of the crime. DPP appealed.- No defence if had mens rea-even if involuntary intoxicated. If inv.intox. caused lack of MR-defence to any crime.
Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963
D-aggressive psychopath-mental disorder which cld b brought on by alcohol. Killed his wife-with intent + drunk (possibly to hv courage).Pleaded insanity+intox. Held: if a person forms MR whilst sane+sober and then gets intox. to commit the crime-no defence.
DPP v Majewski 1977
D. attacked a number of people bt claimed lack of MR due 2 self-induced intox. through drink+drugs. Appealed-dismissed. Self-induced intox. - no defence 2 a crime of basic intent
R v Caldwell 1982
D set fire2 a hotel -arson. Caimed-was too drunk. Held: Self-induced intox. is relevant 2 a charge of intentional crim.dam. bt not where the charge includes recklessness. The risk wld hv bn obvious 2 him if he was sober
Jaggard v Dickinson 1981
D (intox-ted) mistook a house for tht of her friend/broke window-charged with crim.dam.Pleaded a belief under s5(2)) tht wld hv consent for the damage. Appeal allowed-s5(2)) only requires an honest belief and so even one induced by intox. cld b relied on.
act is done by D's muscles bt they r nt, at the time, under the control of D's mind. (concussion, hypoglycemic come or other blackouts)
Bratty v AG for NI 1963
D convicted of murder-claimed-psychomotor epilepsy. Appeal dismissed-Lord Denning-"major mental diseases...such as schizophrenia... clearly diseases of the mind"+disorders falling within definition given in the key principle above"????? House of Lords - doubted in Quick, Burgess - even w/o danger of reoccurence.????
R v Quick and Paddison 1973
Diabetic nurse assaulted patient-hypoglycaemic lapse of consciousness/caused/alcohol/failing 2 eat after taking insulin. Pleaded guilty-judge-only defence-insanity. Appeal allowed:any malfunction of mind-caused by external factors-didn't amount 2 insanity. Appropriate defence-automatism
R v Sullivan 1984
"Not knowing the nature and quality of an act" means that "he did not know what he was doing"
R v Bailey 1983
D-convicted of wounding with intent. Claimed-automatism-hypoglycaemia. Held: Self-induced automatism other than tht arising from intox. from alcohol or drugs, might, in sm cases, form a defence to crimes of basic intent.