Intoxication Essay Flashcards
(6 cards)
1
Q
Intro
A
- Defence can be used when D has inability to form MR
- Define vol and invol
2
Q
Para 1
A
- No distinction between legal and illegal substances
- Should be treated differently, illegal = more culpable.
- Not harsh enoufh if illegal substances used
- However, either can result in crim behaviour so decision reflects public policy being prioritised.
3
Q
Para 2
A
- Dutch courage
- Fair there is no defence where intention was present
- Public pleased, intoxication should not be a defence to intended murder.
- However, D may feel injustice = may claim the intoxicant pushed them to commit the offence which they wouldn’t have committed otherwise
4
Q
Para 3
A
- No clear distinction between vol and invol intoxication
- E.G. Allen - D made mistake about strength of wine, treat as vol intox
- Resulted in injustice if there was a genuine mistake, should be invol (reckless)
- Decision favoured public policy, not guilty = outrage
5
Q
Para 4
A
- Vol intox may be defence to some SI offences but D may be convicted of fall back BI offence (Sheehan and Moore)
- Good balance between justice for D and achieving public policy goals (proving behaviour is wrong).
- However, D’s convicted of lesser BI will feel harshly done (e.g. fall back offence for murder but not theft)
6
Q
Para 5
A
- Many reforms proposed
- Law Commission 2009, specific and basic intent divide should be removed to make defence fairer
- However, D may feel harshly done if they committed SI offence without MR and now has no defence