Intoxication Eval

Question 1

P: Distinction between basic intent and specific intent crimes illogical

Answer 1

Dev: Different rules doesnt seem fair and no subjective mens rea should be no liability regardless of type (R v G and R)
Majewski ignores this principle
Also confusion about definition of basic and specific intent offences
However this could be justified as courts try to discourage reckless intoxication used as excuse

Question 2

P: Inconsistency on fall-back offences for specific intent crimes

Answer 2

Dev; Where someone used the defence successfully for specific intent, two possible outcomes
Whether this happens is based on if there is a lesser offence, which is unfair
E.g.Murder to mansalughter
s.18 OAPA to s.20 OAPA
theft no lesser
E: However offences with no fall back often less serious property offences as opposed to violent crimes

Question 3

P: Public policy v legal principle argument

Answer 3

Dev: public policy says judges should do all they can to protect public
Alcohol abuse involved in 50% of crimes and drain on NHS so courts have duty to discourage
E: However the legal principle arguement is that court should make sure D’s are not punished when they are not at fault
Kingston case shows case more likely to support public policy arguement in intoxication cases

Question 4

P:Recklessness and mens rea

Answer 4

Coincidence rule states that actus reus and mens rea for a crime must coincide - must exist at same time together - Fagan v MPC
Yet majewski rules say voluntary intoxication amounts to recklessness and therefore means D has mens rea which ignores this rule
Also D will not always foresee likely risk of harm when they get intoxicated
However could be justified seeing it as continuing act