Intoxication evaluation 12 mark eval- Paper 1

Question 1

Point 1- Lipman and O’Grady

Answer 1

-Compare intoxicated mistakes in Lipman with murder and O’Grady for self defence
-Ensures people are extra careful when taking intoxicated substances
-Inconsistency creates uncertainty
- Law reformation is needed

Question 2

Point 2- Majewski and O’Grady

Answer 2

-Majewski shows recklessness to get drunk means the MR is present at the time of the crime even though the MR and the AR must coincide.
-O’Grady AR and MR did not coincide.
-Goes against ordinary criminal law.
-However Thabo-Meli, single transaction theory

Question 3

Point 3- Gallagher and Kingston

Answer 3

-Gallagher chose to drink for courage but Kingston’s drink was spiked
-Both were convicted under ‘drunken intent is still intent’
-Unfair as Kingston was much less blameworthy.
-However if D still had the MR then the intoxication is irrelevant and the law seems fit for purpose.

Question 4

Point 4- Allen and Hardie

Answer 4

-Allen did not know the strength of the alcohol he was drinking and court said the intoxication had to be completely involuntary
-Hardie took drugs that had unexpected effects and the courts said this could be involuntary
-LC want to abolish the Allen rule and make lots of different types of involuntary intoxication.
-This may be confusing so it’s unclear if reform is wise here.