R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:03:20 UTC
A was charged with indecent assault.
-
In defence he claimed that he had:
Not realised how high the alcohol content was of is drink so that he was not to blame for his drunkenness, and
That his drunkenness excused his action.
The court ruled that the trial judge had been right not to leave the 2nd argument with the jury (Majewski makes it an unacceptable line of argument), while he was responsible to know exactly what he was drinking.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v O’Grady
Defendant killed Victim while intoxicated, genuinely, though mistakenly, believing that Victim was trying to kill him. He was convicted of manslaughter (murder is a specific intent crime and therefor...
R v Majewski
A man was involved in a pub fight where he attacked the landlord, other customers and police officers. Given that his drunken state was self induced, his defence of intoxication was not to be admitte...
R v Heard
Defendant was drunk and rubbed his penis against Victim’s leg and was convicted of sexual assault. He appealed on the grounds that sexual assault should be considered a crime of specific intent. CA s...
DPP v Little
A case which determined, at CA level, that assault and battery were two separate offences, the accused being charged in both instances as being contrary to s.39 CJA 1988.
R v Kingston
Intoxication can be used as a defense in criminal law cases. Involuntary intoxication is recognized as a valid defense in some jurisdictions. Intoxication caused by the surreptitious administration o...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.