Evaluation of intoxication

Question 1

Moral and legal conflict A01

Answer 1

Immoral just to let people off.
All true crimes require MR.
Attempts to balance moral and legal.
No distinction between legal and ilegal intoxication.

Question 2

All true crimes require a MR case.

Answer 2

Parsley

Question 3

Moral and legal conflict A03 Against

Answer 3

D should not be allowed to get away with crime for drinking too much.
Law inaccessible.
Piecemeal development.

Question 4

Whats the problem with the law being inaccessible?

Answer 4

Could lead to injustice.

Question 5

Whats wrong with piecemeal development?

Answer 5

Could lead to confusion.

Question 6

Moral and legal conflict A03 For

Answer 6

Allows flexibility

Question 7

Problems with compromise solution A01

Answer 7

Majewski principle Voluntary intoxication not defence as getting drunk is reckless itself.

Question 8

Problems with compromise solution A03 Against

Answer 8

Recklessness is subjective
Does not comply with principle of coincidence.

Question 9

Recklessness is subjective case

Answer 9

R-v-G

Question 10

Why does intoxication not comply with principle of coincidence?

Answer 10

AR and recklessness are seperate

Question 11

Problems with compromise solution A03 For

Answer 11

promotes justice and protects public as D not simply getting away with crimes as intoxicated.

Question 12

Types of offences confusion A01

Answer 12

Defence relies on clear distinction between specific and basic intent crimes.
SI intention is needed for Mr.
BI recklessness forms part of the Mr

Question 13

What are SI crimes?

Answer 13

Murder
Theft
Burglary

Question 14

What are BI crimes?

Answer 14

Manslaughter
S20
Common law assault

Question 15

Types of offence confusion A03 Against

Answer 15

Majewski rule relies on clear understanding but is unclear.
Not clear to public and courts what’s a specific and basic crime.
Getting drunk is arguably reckless.

Question 16

What did Andrew Ashworth say about reckless being subjective?

Answer 16

The idea is far fetched.

Question 17

What did the law commission report say about specific and basic intent crimes?

Answer 17

Profoundly misleading

Question 18

Inconsistencies, Complexities and Injustices A01

Answer 18

Voluntary intoxication for SI offence is partial if no MR and no fall-back
No fall- back can be full defence if no Mr formed.

Question 19

Partial defence case

Answer 19

Lipman

Question 20

Hardie case

Answer 20

Involuntary when soporific drugs have an unusual effect.

Question 21

Kingston case

Answer 21

Drugged intent is still an intent.

Question 22

Inconsistencies, Complexities and Injustices A03

Answer 22

Cases dont match up
Some offences have no intention
Rape is intentional but is a basic intent crime
Criminal damage is specific but has recklessness in defintion.

Question 23

Why is Kingston unfair?

Answer 23

Involuntarily intoxication but given no defence.

Question 24

What did the law commission report suggest in 2009?

Answer 24

Proposed abolishing specific and basic intent and there be a list of fault elements.

Question 25

What formula did the law commission report suggest in 2009?

Answer 25

A Consistent formula for which offences can use intoxication.

Question 26

What did the 2009 report suggest?

Answer 26

Suggested removing distinction between dangerous and soporific drugs.

Question 27

If the distinction between dangerous and soporific drugs was removed what case would be voluntary?

Answer 27

Hardie

Question 28

Whats wrong with the two reports?

Answer 28

Does not address transference, recklessness or the coincidence of AR and MR

Question 29

Full defence For

Answer 29

Fairer to V
Send clear messages to citizens
Allow judges to take circumstances into account when sentencing.

Question 30

Full defence Against

Answer 30

Goes against basic principles of law as no MR.

Question 31

No defence For

Answer 31

Effective
fairer to D

Question 32

No defence Against

Answer 32

public concern
increase crimes committed
not fair for cases like rape.

Question 33

Whats public concern?

Answer 33

Intoxication is cause for many crimes if it was always allowed wouldn’t protect public.