Evaluation And Reform For Intoxication

Question 1

Distinction between specific intent and basic intent

Answer 1

Neither logical nor consistently applied

The fallback position which allows for D to be convicted of a lesser offence doesn’t apply to some specific intent offences as there is no corresponding crime of basic intent E.g. Theft

This leads to circumstances were intoxication is a complete defence to some offences and non existent to others, with no logical reason for the distinction

It can be said that drunkenness is should be either relevant or irrelevant for some aspects of some crimes

Question 2

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 2

The decision in kingston says that a D who is involuntarily intoxicated guilty if he forms the MR

This ignores the fact that D is not to blame for the intoxication

Such a defendant would not be guilty in a basic intention offence if the prosecution relied on recklessness
S
This appears to be unfair to a D in Kingston’s situation

Question 3

Difficulties for juries

Answer 3

The state of law at the moment asks juries to enter into a world of fantasy and imagine what the person might have done if he wasn’t intoxicated

Where a person is charged with a crime of basic intent, the jury may have to completely disregard the intoxication -lipman

Question 4

Reforms(recommendations)

Answer 4

Law commission 2009

Distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication should be kept

Abolish the two intents (specific and basic) instead organise crimes where the MR is the integral fault element (fraud,dishonesty or knowledge as to something)

And those where its not

Question 5

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 5

These integral fault elements would have to be proved by the prosecution and the Majewski rule would apply to all the other states of mind

If D is charged with an offence where the MR is not integral then he should be treated as having been aware of everything that he would of been aware of if he was sober

This means that a person could not be proven guilty of an offence requiring an integral fault element then he cannot be guilty until the certain state of mind is not proved

Question 6

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 6

The LC recommend that intoxication should be relevant regardless of the nature of the fault element, which reflects the position in kingston

This would mean that if the D did not have the MR he would not be guilty of the offence, no matter what the MR requirement