evaluation of intoxication Flashcards
what is intoxication
a denial of mens rea and not strictly a defence
when will intox be successful
If jury are satisfied D had no men’s rea for the crime due to intoxicating substances
there has been several proposals for reform what does this suggest
law isn’t fit for purpose
allen and bailey
if d is voluntarily intoxicated e.g alcohol and drugs
what can voluntary intoxication be a defence for
crimes of specific intent
if D can form mr defence will fail case
Gallagher
if successful (vol) won’t be acquitted but convicted of a fall back offence (the basic intent equivalent)
case
Lipman
vol intox basic intent is there a defence and what is the principle
no
Majewski if d was reck when voluntarily becoming intoxicated this is sufficient to satisfy MR
example of invol intox with cases
ross v lord advocate -spiked
hardie -an adverse reaction
involuntary intoxication is a defence to all crime provided theres no MR
true or false
true
if they could form the mes rea irrelevant case
kingston
Allen
involuntary intoxication does not include not knowing the strength of a drink
D may be voluntarily intoxicated then spiked case + who decides
jury to decide -Eaton
intoxicated mistakes are not a defence for … and case
basic intent crimes fotheringtom
OGrady Hatton
force has mistakenly been used in self defence
jaggard v Dickson
if the offence is criminal damage and d has mistaken a genuine belief the owner would consent
Criticism 1 from Majewski undermines what
the principle from majewski undermines the correspondence principle which is unfair for defendants
what does the principal state
that they formed mr when they first became intoxicated which could be hours before AR
DP what happened in Majewski
formed mr 38 hours earlier than AR and it was determined reckless conduct is enough to satisfy basic intent MR
WDP Majewski although
although this principal can be justified it creates justice for victims and society and is therefore fit for purpose as the law doesn’t allow intoxication as an excuse and people should be responsible when voluntarily intoxicated
current law on voluntary intoxication and specific intent
fair regarding D the position reflects the lack of blameworthy state of the defendant where they should be guilty when they did not form the men’s rea
DP for law regarding vol intox and specific intent
Lipman he had no idea what he was actually doing as he genuinely believed he was defending himself against giant serpents and therefore would’ve been unjust to hold him responsible for the murder of his girlfriend.Law is fit for purpose
WDP for vol intox and specific intent
however…
The extent to which a protect the interests of the victims is debatable. In some cases D will be charged for less a fallback offence which acknowledges the wrong thing committed such as the death of Lipmans gf and holds the defendant responsible for a proportion of the crime, but not all offences have a basic content equivalent, such as theft. In this case is the defendant will be acquitted, which aspect of the law is clearly not fit for purpose and does not fully protect the public 
point 3
what is the legal position on invol intoxication
it’s fair and achieves justice for the defendant and victim
protects both interests
reflects lack of blameworthy state in that it wasn’t their fault in being intox but if can form MR be liable
DP invol intox
Ross v Lord Advocate it was clear that the defendant was not at fault for his level of intoxication and saw it would have been and just hold him responsible for the resulting crimes when he was unable to form the mens rea
invol intox WDP
however ….
however, the principal from Kingston has been criticised and it has been argued that it is quite unfair for the defendant.
It was argued in this case that the defendant had only acted as he did because the intoxication had lowered his inhibitions, and that desire is not the same as intent
competing interests and the decision in Kingston clearly promotes the interests of the victims.
While some may argue this is unfair the law must protect those have been harmed so arguably this principle is fit for purpose.
point -the defence of intoxication has several proposals for reform .Give examples
in 1975 the book, the butler committee proposed that there should be a new offence of dangerous intoxication similar to Germany’s law and that this would deal with the issues surrounding fallback offences.
However, this would lead to further inconsistencies in the bundle, rapists and murderers in with thieves also lead to new issues with sentencing.
what did the law commission propose in 2009, stating that the current law is inadequate?
They proposed removing the distinction between basic in specific intent crimes as this proses problems due to not actually been defined in law instead have an integral fault elements.
they also proposed codifying the law so that it is clearer and may remove some of the inconsistencies according to the law commission their proposals would render the law logically sound more comprehensive therefore more accessible and consistent .
Conclusion
ultimately, the loss not been reform despite several recommendations to do so it can be argued. The law is not fit for purpose. So many reasons and does not adequately balance the interests of the defendant versus the interest of the public, but this is not a political priority which suggests it is not in urgent need of a reform
