evaluation of intoxication

Question 1

what is intoxication

Answer 1

a denial of mens rea and not strictly a defence

Question 2

when will intox be successful

Answer 2

If jury are satisfied D had no men’s rea for the crime due to intoxicating substances

Question 3

there has been several proposals for reform what does this suggest

Answer 3

law isn’t fit for purpose

Question 4

allen and bailey

Answer 4

if d is voluntarily intoxicated e.g alcohol and drugs

Question 5

what can voluntary intoxication be a defence for

Answer 5

crimes of specific intent

Question 6

if D can form mr defence will fail case

Answer 6

Gallagher

Question 7

if successful (vol) won’t be acquitted but convicted of a fall back offence (the basic intent equivalent)
case

Answer 7

Lipman

Question 8

vol intox basic intent is there a defence and what is the principle

Answer 8

no
Majewski if d was reck when voluntarily becoming intoxicated this is sufficient to satisfy MR

Question 9

example of invol intox with cases

Answer 9

ross v lord advocate -spiked
hardie -an adverse reaction

Question 10

involuntary intoxication is a defence to all crime provided theres no MR
true or false

Answer 10

true

Question 11

if they could form the mes rea irrelevant case

Answer 11

kingston

Question 12

Allen

Answer 12

involuntary intoxication does not include not knowing the strength of a drink

Question 13

D may be voluntarily intoxicated then spiked case + who decides

Answer 13

jury to decide -Eaton

Question 14

intoxicated mistakes are not a defence for … and case

Answer 14

basic intent crimes fotheringtom

Question 15

OGrady Hatton

Answer 15

force has mistakenly been used in self defence

Question 16

jaggard v Dickson

Answer 16

if the offence is criminal damage and d has mistaken a genuine belief the owner would consent

Question 17

Criticism 1 from Majewski undermines what

Answer 17

the principle from majewski undermines the correspondence principle which is unfair for defendants

Question 18

what does the principal state

Answer 18

that they formed mr when they first became intoxicated which could be hours before AR

Question 19

DP what happened in Majewski

Answer 19

formed mr 38 hours earlier than AR and it was determined reckless conduct is enough to satisfy basic intent MR

Question 20

WDP Majewski although

Answer 20

although this principal can be justified it creates justice for victims and society and is therefore fit for purpose as the law doesn’t allow intoxication as an excuse and people should be responsible when voluntarily intoxicated

Question 21

current law on voluntary intoxication and specific intent

Answer 21

fair regarding D the position reflects the lack of blameworthy state of the defendant where they should be guilty when they did not form the men’s rea

Question 22

DP for law regarding vol intox and specific intent

Answer 22

Lipman he had no idea what he was actually doing as he genuinely believed he was defending himself against giant serpents and therefore would’ve been unjust to hold him responsible for the murder of his girlfriend.Law is fit for purpose

Question 23

WDP for vol intox and specific intent
however…

Answer 23

The extent to which a protect the interests of the victims is debatable. In some cases D will be charged for less a fallback offence which acknowledges the wrong thing committed such as the death of Lipmans gf and holds the defendant responsible for a proportion of the crime, but not all offences have a basic content equivalent, such as theft. In this case is the defendant will be acquitted, which aspect of the law is clearly not fit for purpose and does not fully protect the public 

Question 24

point 3
what is the legal position on invol intoxication

Answer 24

it’s fair and achieves justice for the defendant and victim
protects both interests
reflects lack of blameworthy state in that it wasn’t their fault in being intox but if can form MR be liable

Question 25

DP invol intox

Answer 25

Ross v Lord Advocate it was clear that the defendant was not at fault for his level of intoxication and saw it would have been and just hold him responsible for the resulting crimes when he was unable to form the mens rea

Question 26

invol intox WDP however ….

Answer 26

however, the principal from Kingston has been criticised and it has been argued that it is quite unfair for the defendant. It was argued in this case that the defendant had only acted as he did because the intoxication had lowered his inhibitions, and that desire is not the same as intent competing interests and the decision in Kingston clearly promotes the interests of the victims. While some may argue this is unfair the law must protect those have been harmed so arguably this principle is fit for purpose.

Question 27

point -the defence of intoxication has several proposals for reform .Give examples

Answer 27

in 1975 the book, the butler committee proposed that there should be a new offence of dangerous intoxication similar to Germany’s law and that this would deal with the issues surrounding fallback offences. However, this would lead to further inconsistencies in the bundle, rapists and murderers in with thieves also lead to new issues with sentencing.

Question 28

what did the law commission propose in 2009, stating that the current law is inadequate?

Answer 28

They proposed removing the distinction between basic in specific intent crimes as this proses problems due to not actually been defined in law instead have an integral fault elements. they also proposed codifying the law so that it is clearer and may remove some of the inconsistencies according to the law commission their proposals would render the law logically sound more comprehensive therefore more accessible and consistent .

Question 29

Conclusion

Answer 29

ultimately, the loss not been reform despite several recommendations to do so it can be argued. The law is not fit for purpose. So many reasons and does not adequately balance the interests of the defendant versus the interest of the public, but this is not a political priority which suggests it is not in urgent need of a reform