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?
🧠 Тематика вопроса:
Данная дисциплина охватывает ключевые аспекты гражданского судопроизводства, включая спорные моменты и актуальные правовые коллизии. Она позволяет углубленно изучить современные процессуальные механизмы, анализировать судебную практику и вырабатывать навыки эффективного ведения дел. Особое внимание уделяется новейшим тенденциям в законодательстве, а также стратегиям защиты интересов сторон в условиях меняющейся правовой реальности. Курс формирует у обучающихся системный подход к решению сложных процессуальных задач.
Варианты ответа:
- 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
Ответ будет доступен после оплаты
📚 Похожие вопросы по этой дисциплине
- The distinction between Public and Private Law is a purely academic debate, nevertheless, it also affects legal practice. There are areas of law, which may not fit into distinction of Public or Private Law. Study the following case: An employment inspector investigates workplace safety, checking all the equipment. The inspector investigates workplace incidents, and conducts workplace inspections to evaluate compliance. Decide whether it falls into the category of Public or Private law.
- Mary had therapy sessions. She found out that the psychologist sent copies of her case notes to the insurance carrier responsible for reimbursement and that therapist should not have revealed this information. Client reported psychologist to the APA Ethics Committee for violating confidentiality principles. Psychologist explained to Ethics Committee that any client understands that their confidentiality may be breached when using an insurance company for third-party reimbursement due to administrative and professional peer review. Nonetheless, psychologist never informed client of this risk before therapy began, rather, he assumed client “must understand” the protocol. Think of the Ethics Committee adjudication.
- Analyze the following case: Therapist sent a third billing notice to a slow-to- pay client’s fax machine in her office but client did not report to work that day. The bill was titled “psychological services rendered” and handwritten in large print was “Third Notice – OVERDUE!!” with client’s name. This notice sat in an open access mail tray of the busy office all day. Was is reasonable? Is it allowed to send private material in such a manner?
- Rachel buys a commercial welding machine for her building business. A few weeks later, it breaks down. Can Rachel get a remedy from the store he bought it from?
- Susan buys a cup of coffee and accidentally spills it at Kate’s bar. What must Kate do to fix the problem?