Back
to top
Aqa law unit 3 intoxication help
Watch this thread
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Faith.A
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Okay I'm like 75% okay with intoxication except with voluntary intoxication - I know that it can be only used for specific intent crimes but what keeps popping up in my head is a scenario that has the D commit S.18 GBH that was voluntarily intoxicated ... Is that even a possible defence seeing as s.18 requires intent or resisting arrest (so it would never be s.18 in this case) or would it be a case where the D formed the mens rea before being voluntarily intoxicated .... Or would the D having been voluntarily intoxicated have a reduced criminal liability to s.20? I'm sooo baffed right now *_*
So basically, what is the answer for the D being liable for s.18 who was voluntarily intoxicated??
- This came up in the 2011 June paper scenario 1 -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-qp-jun11.pdf
- mark scheme for it -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-ms-jun11.pdf
So basically, what is the answer for the D being liable for s.18 who was voluntarily intoxicated??
- This came up in the 2011 June paper scenario 1 -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-qp-jun11.pdf
- mark scheme for it -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-ms-jun11.pdf
0
reply
TSR Jessica
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
Sorry you've not had any responses about this. 
Are you sure you’ve posted in the right place? Posting in the specific Study Help forum should help get responses. 
I'm going to quote in She-Ra now so she can move your thread to the right place if it's needed.
Are you sure you’ve posted in the right place? Posting in the specific Study Help forum should help get responses. 
I'm going to quote in She-Ra now so she can move your thread to the right place if it's needed.
Spoiler:
Show
(Original post by She-Ra)
x
x
0
reply
Faith.A
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
She-Ra
Badges:
21
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by Faith.A)
Okay I'm like 75% okay with intoxication except with voluntary intoxication - I know that it can be only used for specific intent crimes but what keeps popping up in my head is a scenario that has the D commit S.18 GBH that was voluntarily intoxicated ... Is that even a possible defence seeing as s.18 requires intent or resisting arrest (so it would never be s.18 in this case) or would it be a case where the D formed the mens rea before being voluntarily intoxicated .... Or would the D having been voluntarily intoxicated have a reduced criminal liability to s.20? I'm sooo baffed right now *_*
So basically, what is the answer for the D being liable for s.18 who was voluntarily intoxicated??
- This came up in the 2011 June paper scenario 1 -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-qp-jun11.pdf
- mark scheme for it -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-ms-jun11.pdf
Okay I'm like 75% okay with intoxication except with voluntary intoxication - I know that it can be only used for specific intent crimes but what keeps popping up in my head is a scenario that has the D commit S.18 GBH that was voluntarily intoxicated ... Is that even a possible defence seeing as s.18 requires intent or resisting arrest (so it would never be s.18 in this case) or would it be a case where the D formed the mens rea before being voluntarily intoxicated .... Or would the D having been voluntarily intoxicated have a reduced criminal liability to s.20? I'm sooo baffed right now *_*
So basically, what is the answer for the D being liable for s.18 who was voluntarily intoxicated??
- This came up in the 2011 June paper scenario 1 -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-qp-jun11.pdf
- mark scheme for it -> http://alevellaw.doomby.com/medias/f...w-ms-jun11.pdf
Good luck with everything
0
reply
KS1996x
Badges:
7
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
Hi, with regards to this question and your problem with the S18 GBH, the offence of S18 GBH is of specific intent as the required mens rea cannot be committed recklessly. As suggested in Majewski, only crimes of specific intent can use voluntary intoxication as a defence.
Chris's voluntary intoxication could be used to reduce the specific S18 to a basic S20, if he's able to show that he doesn't possess the mens rea of s18 (intention to cause GBH) as a result of his intoxicated state. However with regards to the battery/possible ABH of punching him, following Majewski, wouldn't be able to use the defence of intox.
I hope that's right! I think so
Chris's voluntary intoxication could be used to reduce the specific S18 to a basic S20, if he's able to show that he doesn't possess the mens rea of s18 (intention to cause GBH) as a result of his intoxicated state. However with regards to the battery/possible ABH of punching him, following Majewski, wouldn't be able to use the defence of intox.
I hope that's right! I think so
0
reply
Faith.A
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
(Original post by KS1996x)
Hi, with regards to this question and your problem with the S18 GBH, the offence of S18 GBH is of specific intent as the required mens rea cannot be committed recklessly. As suggested in Majewski, only crimes of specific intent can use voluntary intoxication as a defence.
Chris's voluntary intoxication could be used to reduce the specific S18 to a basic S20, if he's able to show that he doesn't possess the mens rea of s18 (intention to cause GBH) as a result of his intoxicated state. However with regards to the battery/possible ABH of punching him, following Majewski, wouldn't be able to use the defence of intox.
I hope that's right! I think so
Hi, with regards to this question and your problem with the S18 GBH, the offence of S18 GBH is of specific intent as the required mens rea cannot be committed recklessly. As suggested in Majewski, only crimes of specific intent can use voluntary intoxication as a defence.
Chris's voluntary intoxication could be used to reduce the specific S18 to a basic S20, if he's able to show that he doesn't possess the mens rea of s18 (intention to cause GBH) as a result of his intoxicated state. However with regards to the battery/possible ABH of punching him, following Majewski, wouldn't be able to use the defence of intox.
I hope that's right! I think so
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
