Intoxication Essay Flashcards

(6 cards)

1
Q

Intro

A
  • Defence can be used when D has inability to form MR
  • Define vol and invol
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly