evalutation intoxication

Question 1

what is there a conflict in the law on intoxication between

Answer 1

public policy and legal principle

Question 2

what is public policy and what does it favour

Answer 2

making law based on the protection of society- favours conviction for intoxication

Question 3

why does public policy favour conviction for intoxication

Answer 3

it is a major factor in the commission of many crimes

Question 4

according to legal principle what is it only fair to do

Answer 4

acquit ds if they have no mens rea and are not at fault

Question 5

what has been given priority over the last 40 years despite the law on intoxication trying to balance these opposing interests

Answer 5

public policy- eg a mistaken belief caused by ds voluntary intoxication is not sufficient for the defence of self defence- O’ Grady

Question 6

what do some areas of the law on intoxication appear to be contrary to

Answer 6

the normal rules on actus reus and mens rea

Question 7

what is the majewski rule

Answer 7

d is guilty of a basic intent because d is seen as reckless in getting drunk in the first place

Question 8

what does the majewski rule ignore

Answer 8

the principle that actus reus and mens rea must coincide- ds decision to drink may be several hours before d commits ar of any offence

Question 9

what is the issue related to the identification of crimes as either specific or basic intent

Answer 9

it appears neither logical nor consistently applied by the courts

Question 10

how has identification of crimes as either specific or basic intent proven to be illogical

Answer 10

offence of involuntary manslaughter has been labelled a basic intent crime, despite fact that two forms of this offence (unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter) do not make any mention of recklessness at all

Question 11

what can d use as a defence where he is charged with an offence under s18 OAPA

Answer 11

intoxication provided he was so intoxicated he did not form intent to do GBH

Question 12

what can d be found guilty of where he uses intoxication as a defence to s18 OAPA and why

Answer 12

a lower level offence- s20 because intoxication is not a defence to a basic intent offence (s18)

Question 13

what do not all specific intent crimes have and what does this lead to

Answer 13

a fall back basic intent offence- thus there is inconsistency in the law

Question 14

what did the law commission present in 2009

Answer 14

a report on the reform of intoxication to parliament

Question 15

what does the law commission report 2009 propose

Answer 15

-abolishing misleading terms ‘specific’ and ‘basic’ intent

Question 16

what would there be a list of that always had to be proved by the prosecution in the proposals of the law commission

Answer 16

states of mind- called ‘integral fault elements’

Question 17

for offences with integral fault elements what could be used to establish lack of mens rea?

Answer 17

evidence of voluntary intoxication

Question 18

what rule would apply to offences not including integral fault eleents

Answer 18

majewski

Question 19

how should d be treated in deciding whether or not he is liable

Answer 19

as having been aware of anything which he would have been aware of if he was sober

Question 20

what would it make the law if the law commissions proposals were enacted by parliament

Answer 20

clearer and more accessible