Evaluation For Intoxication Flashcards
(Front – P):
The law is unclear between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: If a person is involuntarily intoxicated (they didn’t choose to be), it can be a full defence (R v Kingston). But if intoxication is voluntary (they chose to get drunk or high), the law doesn’t always apply consistently.
• Impact: This causes confusion about when intoxication can be used as a defence, especially if the person knew what they were doing to some extent.
• Example: In R v Hardie, the defendant used intoxication as a defence because he took prescribed drugs.
• However: In R v Kingston, the court found that the defendant still had mens rea, even though someone drugged him.
(Front – P):
The law treats intoxication differently for basic and specific intent crimes.
Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: For specific intent crimes (like murder), if someone’s intoxicated and can’t form the necessary mens rea (guilty mind), they might be charged with a lesser crime like manslaughter instead.
• Impact: This creates confusion because it means a person could get a lighter sentence for serious crimes, while people committing basic intent crimes (like assault) may not get the same defence.
• Example: In R v Majewski, the court said intoxication can’t be a defence for basic intent crimes like assault.
• However: The law isn’t always clear, and some specific intent crimes, like theft or robbery, might still allow the intoxication defence without a fallback offence.
(Front – P):
There is no set rule for how intoxicated someone must be to use it as a defence.
– Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: The level of intoxication needed for a defence isn’t fixed, and it’s up to the court to decide.
• Impact: This can lead to unfairness, especially in serious cases where intoxication might reduce the seriousness of the crime, like in R v Lipman.
• Example: In R v Lipman, the defendant was too intoxicated to form the mens rea for murder, but he was convicted of manslaughter.
• However: In R v Majewski, intoxication could actually make the crime worse because it shows recklessness, making the defendant more guilty.
(Front – P):
The law of intoxication raises issues of personal responsibility and society’s protection.
Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: The law has to balance allowing people to make their own choices (like drinking or taking drugs) with protecting society from harm.
• Impact: Intoxication as a defence can make it harder to hold people fully responsible for their actions, especially if they commit crimes while drunk or high.
• Example: If someone drinks too much and commits a crime, it might feel unfair to let them escape full responsibility because of intoxication.
• However: The law still tries to protect individuals and society by making sure intoxication isn’t always seen as an excuse for harmful actions.
(Front – P):
There have been suggestions for reforming the intoxication defence.
Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: The Law Commission’s 2009 report suggested simplifying the law and removing the distinction between basic and specific intent crimes when it comes to intoxication.
• Impact: This could make it clearer when intoxication can be used as a defence, so it’s applied more fairly across all cases.
• Example: The Law Commission said that if someone is reckless while intoxicated, they should be treated as if they knew the risks, even if they were drunk.
• However: Reform hasn’t happened yet, and many still argue the law should be clearer in terms of when involuntary intoxication can be used as a defence.
(Introduction)
Intoxication as a defence has been criticised for inconsistency and unclear application. The law has evolved through case law and bodies like the Law Commission, but it remains unclear.
(Conclusion)
The current law is inconsistent, often allowing defendants to escape full liability for serious offences. Reform is needed to make the law clearer and fairer, particularly regarding basic vs specific intent crimes.
