Seminar 13 - Criminal - Intoxication -SW202 by Claire Turner

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2025-01-20 21:30:21 UTC

Link to Kingston

claire43 — 2025-01-20 21:30:42 UTC

Link to Kingston word document

claire43 — 2025-01-20 21:30:59 UTC

Morgan had recently split up from his boyfriend, Jack. Jack had moved out of the flat that they shared together. Since Jack had left, Morgan had been finding life very difficult and had taken to drinking a bottle of vodka every night, just to get through the evening. Three weeks later, Morgan was out drinking heavily in a club when he saw Jack kissing another man, Dave. Desperately sad about what he had seen, and by that point extremely intoxicated, Morgan approached the couple and started shouting in Dave’s face, ‘fronting’ close up to him. Jack had not been drinking that evening. He had been very feeling very guilty about how much Morgan was struggling with the split and was feeling slightly uncertain about his new relationship. He knew from experience that, when he wasn’t feeling good about things, alcohol caused his emotions to become heightened, so he had been drinking soft drinks all evening. Dave was disappointed that Jack wasn’t drinking so, in order that Jack relax a little, Dave spiked his lemonade with a triple vodka. Jack started to feel very emotional about the past and noticed that Morgan was sitting alone. Jack went over to him and, although Morgan tried to move away, hugged him tightly. Afterwards, he said he’d ‘just wanted to touch him’. Needing a break from Morgan and Jack’s troubles, Dave stayed in the club and continued drinking with some other friends. After having drunk a significant amount, Dave got into an argument with Scott and punched him in the face, Scott fell and split his skull open on a table. Dave then left with his group of friends, stealing a bottle of gin from behind the bar as he made his way out. Examine what, if any, liability arises here.

claire43 — 2025-01-20 21:31:17 UTC

Question 2

claire43 — 2025-01-20 21:31:37 UTC

Revisit the facts of Kingston. The Court of Appeal [1994] Q.B. 81 quashed the defendant’s conviction. The House of Lords [1994] 3 WLR 519 reinstated it, holding that, ‘a drunken intent is still an intent’. What reasons did the appellate courts give here for their respective rulings? Try to find at least two reasons for each and also find a quote (passage) from the judgment which shows the reasoning

claire43 — 2025-01-20 21:31:53 UTC

Morgan defendant - assault

claire43 — 2026-01-20 16:41:34 UTC

Define assault - Fagan

MR - Intention to cause the apprehension of force (Venna)

Intoxication is not relevant - basic intent crime. Majewski -'reducing himself by... drink to that condition...supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind...' - relieves the prosecution of proving MR for assault.

Jack defendant - battery

claire43 — 2026-01-20 16:50:06 UTC

Define battery - Fagan; Collins v Wilcock

Collins v Wilcock -conduct generally acceptable in everyday life. Tried to move away but hugged him tightly. (F v West Berkshire)

Rely on intoxication, involuntary

Basic intent - Majewski

Involuntary - Kingston - formed the MR - sentencing. As he stated afterwards 'I just wanted to touch him' That is still intention to apply the force beyond which is generally acceptable.