Intoxication essay

Question 1

What do statistics show?

Answer 1

That 1/2 of all violent crimes are committed while d is intoxicated

Question 2

What does the law try to achieve

Answer 2

A balance between PP and LP

Question 3

What is PP and LP

Answer 3

PP based on protection of the public and encouraging good behaviour and courts protecting innocent victims, while LP imposes liability where there is fault and must safeguards the rights of D

Question 4

Which does the law on intoxication favour- PP or LP?

Answer 4

PP as it would be wrong to allow intoxication defence generally on the basis D could not foresee actions as would give rise to the proposition that the more intoxicated you become the stronger your defence

Question 5

What does Glanville Williams say about the danger of allowing a defence to intoxication?

Answer 5

It would be inimical to the safety of all of use if the judge could announce that anyone could gain exemption from the criminal law by getting drunk

Question 6

how has intoxication been developed

Answer 6

developed at the common law therefore has proved difficult to fund a cohesive and logical approach

Question 7

Defence of BIC

Answer 7

in vol intoxication Majewksi no defence- it is reckless conduct to get intoxicated and recklessness is enough for the MR

Question 8

Why has Majewski attached much criticism?

Answer 8

judicial efforts to square Majewksi with normal rules of fault are unconvincing, is it wrong of the HL to equate drunkeness with recklessness? In normal subjective recklesnsness, D must appreciate a specific harm, does an intoxicated D?

Question 9

What is argued Hughes

Answer 9

Instead we should regard the rule as one of moral equivalence rather than automatically saying that by drinking D has the MR

Question 10

What is the advantage of moral equivalence

Answer 10

argument is that allows D to be not found guilty where the risk is not foreseen when sober

Question 11

Moral equivalence explains the outcome of what case

Answer 11

Richardson v Irwin: jury directed to ignore the effects of intoxication and instead were told to treat D as having been aware of any risk that he would have been while sober

Question 12

Why is Richardson v Irwin the better approach

Answer 12

It would uphold the need to protect society as in most cases D would have foreseen the risk while sober, but automatically equating drunkenness to recklessness would not apply

Question 13

Where was the ruling in Richardson approved

Answer 13

LC 2009 reccomedations

Question 14

What did Sinister argued about vol BIC

Answer 14

we are yet to see a convincing argument that getting drunk is morally wrong because of the inherent risk of violence. Other risk creating activities do not become wrongs due to the unwarranted consequences they may have. It must be shown that D did have MR rather than equating MR because things turned out badly, the doctrine is morally illegitimate

Question 15

Issue with the SIC/BIC divide

Answer 15

There is a lack of clarity surrounding the distinction between SIC/BIC. Intoxication requires offences to fit into a category without clear formula for doing so, and the categorisation takes place on a case-case basis therefore it is possible for inconsistency and error

Question 16

Who criticised the SIC/BIC divide

Answer 16

Williams: lack of theoretical basis lead to confused applications in practices

Question 17

Majewski and SIC/BIC

Answer 17

seemed to treat offences that satisfied through recklessness as BIC. Simon tried to be more specific to intent as to consequences were D must intend the consequence to come about as SIC, but this cannot be right as murder is clearly as SIC but do not need intent to kill

Question 18

Heard and SIC/BIC

Answer 18

where the purpose goes beyond the AR- an ulterior intent. But this is more problematic than Majewski. He was convicted and appealed on the grounds that the judge was in error in ruling that sexual assault was a crime of basic intent since it requires an intention to touch. Therefore results in the conclusion that sexual offences are BIC

Question 19

What does Smith and Hogan about the division

Answer 19

the distinction is a matter of policy rather than logic. However, how could a trail judge confidently classify. Despite this Smith and Hogan say both Majewksi and Heard are unattractive alternatives and the current law remains to be too uncertaib

Question 20

What did the LC recommend

Answer 20

end to the dissection and apply a set of rules uniformly

Question 21

Where has MAjewski been rejected

Answer 21

In other jurisdictions in favour of the logical application of the normal rules of fault O’Connor to allow a conviction where D was vol intoxicated and incapable if forming MR would be to define a new crime which would be best left to parliament

Question 22

Where has inconsistency been created with statute in intoxication

Answer 22

S 8 CJA allows a court to take into account anything that might affect D’s state of mind when committing an offence, however Majewski doe snot allow a defence to intoxication for BIC where vol. However, it was said S 8 refers to only relevant evidence and intoxication is irrelevant for BIC. However in Aus/NEw zealand the jury may considered the effects of intoxication and has not lead to the feared increase in acquittalsaquittals

Question 23

Issue of vol intoxiation

Answer 23

increased leniency however limited by dutch courage drinking to provide courage will not provide a defence, and use of the fall back principle, although theft is the exception

Question 24

involuntary intoxication

Answer 24

would not be fair to say that D had chosen to take a risk associated with Vol intoxication therefore a less harsh view has been taken,

Question 25

Unlikely intoxications

Answer 25

the view in Majewksi is that common knowledge that those who take alcohol or drugs may become aggressive or do unpredictable things.

Question 26

Bailey

Answer 26

Where taken prescription drugs which have an unaffected impact treated as involved intoxication applied in Hardie.

Question 27

Issue with Hardie

Answer 27

Is the subjective approach of Bailey too generous for someone like Hardie who should not have taken the drugs in the first place?

Question 28

R v Kingston

Answer 28

too harsh? However approved by LC to be put on a statutory footing

Question 29

Butler Reform

Answer 29

suggested an offence of dangerous intoxication which would be used where D was acquitted by way of intoxication and convicted with this offence max 3 years. However not adopted due to the sentence 3 years where for example someone kills

Question 30

What did the LC propose in 1993

Answer 30

Similar offence of criminal intoxication

Question 31

Sinister on criminal intoxication

Answer 31

D might be more fairly labelled where he is convicted of a stand alone intoxicated wrong doing offence rather than the crime corresponding to the AR he later commits/

Question 32

How else supports an offence of intoxication

Answer 32

Williams but he argues that would need to examine how it would work. but thought it may be simpler and clear than the current rules, provide a fair label and held monitor the role played by intoxicants in crime