Critical Evaluation of Intoxication

Question 1

What is the critical issue with the defence of voluntary intoxication in basic intent offences?

Answer 1

Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences, as being intoxicated is reckless.
Critics argue it punishes people for wanting to drink.

Question 2

What are the advantages of the voluntary intoxication rule for basic intent crimes?

Answer 2

It promises personal responsibility, as intoxication can be seen as recklessness

Provides clarity in distinguishing between specific and basic intent crimes

It deters excessive drinking in relation to committing crimes

Question 3

What are the disadvantages of the voluntary intoxication rule for basic intent crimes?

Answer 3

It may lead to unfair convictions for those who genuinely lack criminal intent due to intoxication

Intoxication may negate mens rea, but the law doesn’t allow it as a defence for baisc intent offences.

Critics argue it punishes individuals for the consequence of alcohol rather than their mental state.

Question 4

How has the defence of involuntary intoxication been criticised?

Answer 4

Involuntary intoxication is allowed as a defence, but its application can be complex and inconsistent.

R v Hardie showed that an innocent intoxication can lead to a successful defence, which might be seen as too lenient.

There is no clear line on how the law distinguishes involuntary intoxication from voluntary intoxication.