Essays - Intoxication Flashcards
What are the key points in an intoxication essay?
- Public Policy
- Legal Principle
- Contradiction?
Conclusion = Principle prevails over policy.
What does it mean by public policy?
That public policy says that being inxtoxicated is not allowed as a defence. As it should be an aggravating factor to an offence, not a mitigating one.
Why does public policy not allow intoxication as a defence?
As it would encourage people to escape liability due to being drunk.
What does it mean by the legal principle?
That law requires proof of some form of MR. Basically saying that some offences have specific or basic intent or both.
Why can intoxication conflict with the legal principle?
As some crimes are specific intent only, their MR has to be intended. Whether it was direct or indirect intent, to be charged with the defence you have to have intended it.
How does intoxication work as a defence?
If D is drunk a court cannot prove their intent, removing them from being charge with specific intent crimes. Instead, when you are drunk you can only be reckless, simply because you are drunk. So the D simply for being drunk, will be charged with a lesser offence.
Why is the legal principle an issue when using intoxication?
It is not fair that the D will get away with a specific intent crime, when all they did was get drunk. Being under the influence is an aggravating factor, so how is it fair to the viticm that their attack gets a lesser sentence simply for being drunk.
What does it mean by Contradition?
The D is still charged with the specific intent offence however some offences do not have an alternative. So they will be reduced to a basic intent offence which is as similar as possible to the specific intent offence.
What is needed for intoxication to work?
A balance between policy and principle. Where there is a big enough deterrent to stop the average person from committing crimes whilst drunk to get a lesser offence but also allowing the defence to work by downgrading the charges against D. If one or the over is too overpowering, it makes the defence useless
Conclusion - what does it mean when there is “no contradiction”?
There is no contradiction, as the government and the courts create that balance of policy and principle.
How do the governments and courts create a balance of policy and principle?
The government sets the wording of the law, so courts have to follow their rule. The government represent the public policy. The courts follow the policy and in accordance with it enforce the legal principle, and they do so as legal experts ensuring that a balance is kept.
In summary, the government set the public policy which guides what the court choose to enforce as principle.
Why does principle overcome policy?
As the government only outlines what the policy is, the courts will use their power and enforce the principle as well as they can. Due to the frequency, the legal principle is used, it will often take precedent over the policy, meaning there is no contradiction as the principle of the defence is more important.
What did O’Grady rule?
That someone can still use self-defence even when intoxicated, as long as they used reasonable force. The moment they use more than reasonable force due to their intoxication is when D cannot use self-defence.
Why was the decision made in O’Grady?
As the court of appeal said that there are 2 interests at play. One where the D only acted according to what they believed was necessary. Secondly, one in the public interest, where the V could be hurt or killed due to a drunk D’s mistake.
So this decision creates a balance.
What did Hatton rule?
That you can be mistaken about the need for self-defence. However, you cannot raise self-defence if your intoxication is the reason why you made that mistake.
