Intoxication

Question 1

Issues with public policy?

Answer 1

• Reluctant to acquit intoxicated criminals for public policy reasons and it would also be unfair if this were to be a defence for anyone who was intoxicated else it may become a reason to commit crimes.
• This does not always act in the best interests of the defendant.

Question 2

Involuntary and voluntary consumption:

Answer 2

• Law draws a distinction between the two and allows involuntary intoxication a defence for all crimes if they cannot form sufficient mens rea.
• HOL in R V Kingston said that intoxicated intent is still intent even though it was involuntary intoxication. This seems extremely harsh and unfair as they are victim of crime and not morally blame worthy.

Question 3

Basic and specific intent crimes:

Answer 3

• Courts have found a way to convict those who voluntarily consume and commit crimes by distinguishing between crimes of specific or basic intent.
• Crimes of specific intent can only be committed if D has mens rea of intent. They may therefore be able to get away with these crimes if do not drop it to lesser offence.
• This seems harsh as usually these are the most serious crime therefore most deserving of punishment.
• Some specific intent crimes do not have corresponding basic intent crime which would therefore result in a full acquittal.

Question 4

Suggested reforms:

Answer 4

• Ensure all specific intent have corresponding basic intent crime. So conviction can be assured.
• Create a new offence of dangerous intoxication.
• Critics argue that since D was incapable of forming mens rea legal principle dictates that he should be acquitted which would mean intoxication should be a full acquittal for all crimes.
  Seems unjust.