Intoxication evaluation

Question 1

A01 paragraph 1:

Answer 1

• Voluntary Intoxication (what is is)
• DPP v Beard, Lord Birkenhead’s definition
• Sheehan and Moore
• Gallagher
  -Specific intent crimes but not basic

Question 2

A01 Paragraph 2:

Answer 2

• Involuntary intoxication
• Can be not knowing or ‘sedatives’ that have an intoxicating effect
• Hardy
  -Kingston
• Exception in Jaggard v Dickinson where the rule in Majewski - doesn’t apply if relying on special defence

Question 3

DP 1

Answer 3

• Need to balance the rights of D and V
• Kingston - D charged despite involuntary intoxication
• More justice for V because could cause uncertainty with D

Question 4

WDP 1

Answer 4

However,
- Public policy has became a main theme
- Can go against principles of law such as Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
- Goes against D needing mens rea
- Needs reform

Question 5

DP 2

Answer 5

Acknowledges that drunken intent is still intent
- Offers protection to V
- Can’t be used on basic intent crimes where recklessness is enough for mens rea so better for victim

Question 6

WDP 2