The defendant decided to kill his sister. He bought a knife and a bottle of strong alcohol which he drank to give himself “Dutch Courage”. Then he killed his sister. He subsequently claimed that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing, or possibly even that the drink had brought on a latent psychopathic state so that he was insane at the time of the killing. What was the Court’s decision?

• The Court held that intoxication could not be a defence in either case as the intent had not been clearly formed, albeit after the killing took place
• The Court held that intoxication could not be a defence in either case as the intent had been clearly formed, albeit before the killing took place
• The Court held that intoxication could be a defence in either case even if the intent had been clearly formed

Другие предметы Колледж Интоксикация как защита в уголовном праве Английский язык в юриспруденции колледж юридическое образование изучение английского правовой английский профессиональный английский английский для юристов юридический колледж курсы английского языка английский для адвокатов Новый

To determine the correct decision of the Court in this scenario, let's analyze the situation step by step, focusing on the legal principles involved.

1. Understanding Intoxication as a Defence:

   • Generally, intoxication can be a defence in criminal law if it negates the mens rea, or the intent, required to commit a crime. However, this is typically applicable in cases of involuntary intoxication or where the intoxication prevents the formation of specific intent.

2. Voluntary Intoxication:

   • In this scenario, the defendant voluntarily consumed alcohol to gain "Dutch Courage" to commit the crime. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence to crimes of basic intent, such as murder, because the intent was formed before the intoxication.

3. Formation of Intent:

   • The key point here is the timing and clarity of the intent. The defendant decided to kill his sister before consuming alcohol. This indicates that the intent was formed prior to the intoxication.

4. Court's Likely Decision:

   • Given that the intent to commit the crime was clearly formed before the intoxication, the Court would likely hold that intoxication could not be used as a defence. The fact that the defendant consumed alcohol to gain courage to carry out the premeditated act does not negate the initial intent.

Based on this analysis, the most appropriate decision by the Court would be:

The Court held that intoxication could not be a defence in either case as the intent had been clearly formed, albeit before the killing took place.

This decision aligns with the principle that voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal liability when the intent to commit the crime was established prior to becoming intoxicated.