Critical evaluation of the law on intoxication and consent defences. Flashcards
What is the issue surrounding the case of Majewski?
It states that being drunk is a reckless course of conduct which seems unfair as many people get drunk.
Why is it difficult to prove that the defendant has the mens rea when they are intoxicated
The defendant is clearly not in control when the defendant is intoxicated but the defence will fail if the defendant is intoxicated voluntarily.
How has the defence of intoxication one of public policy
The legal rule is that if there is not mens rea then there is no liability but it is a matter of public interest that being drunk should not excuse you of liability but is this legally correct?
What did the law commission 2009 document state
There should be a new view that the fault element of the crime should not be an ‘integral’ part of crime. And whether the defendant would have been aware of harm ‘but for the intoxication’
How does the cases of Jones and Aitken highlight unfairness in the law on consent?
In these cases it seems the defendants were engaging in violent bullying than horseplay is it fair that the defence is open to them?
What unfairness does the case of Brown highlight
It is unfair that the defence is not open to cases such as brown where there is real consent and is available to cases such as aitken where there is implied consent
Why is the law on consent not clear and use the cases of Barnes and Wilson as examples
From Barnes it seem that consent is a defence to reckless injury but not to intended injury however this issue isn’t consistent as harm was intentional in Wilson
What reforms should be made on the law of consent
The government should legislate on the law of consent to give it clarity and consistency therefore no more unjust rulings will be made.
