Intoxication Evaluation Flashcards
A01 Intoxication
-intoxication can be by alcohol, drugs or other substances. Is a defence because the D may be so intoxicated that they were incapable of forming men’s rea of offence.
A03: intoxication. Personal autonomy and social paternalism
-Competing interests of personal autonomy and social paternalism.
-Personal autonomy where adult can make a choice to spend as much of own money on buying alcohol as they wish and with legal drugs like alcohol this can be done in public
-social paternalism conflicts as excessive consumption of drugs bad for society so should be discouraged.
-discouraged through the CJS
A01: voluntary intoxication and cases
-D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance and knows the effect of taking a prescribed drug.
-Beard
-AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Sheehan and Moore
-Lipman
A01 involuntary intoxication and cases
-Doesn’t know that they are consuming an intoxicant or D consumes under medical advice or intoxicant commonly known to be a sedative has unusual effect
Evaluation for voluntary intoxication, MR issues
-Difference between voluntary and involuntary can be unclear. Sheehan and Moore: drunken intent still intent. Where D has necessary men’s rea despite being intoxicated them still guilty of offence.
-Defence still fit for purpose as dft not thinking like sober person but remains guilty. However few offences require specific intent. Theft problematic as no offence to drop down to.
Evaluation for involuntary intoxication
-No account taken of effect of an intoxicating substance on individuals where inhibitions broken down by being involuntarily intoxicated as in Kingston
-Complete defence, hard to succeed as have to prove no awareness of intoxication which is hard to prove. Kingston inconsistent as he was drugged but convicted as assault intentional, but not his fault. HL restored, due to social policy
A01: Basic and specific intent
-Basic intent: have recklessness as part of men’s rea. Eg mansalughter, s20 and s47 OAPA.
-Specific intent have intent only as MR eg murder and s18 OAPA
Evaluation for specific and basic intent issues:
-Distinction between specific and basic intent leads to inconsistency
-In cases of OAPA specific intent crimes can be swapped to basic intent. Not alternative for theft. Successful defence would lead to acquittal.
-If one of basic intent then the law is clear that there is no defence for vol intox. Majewski : recklessness enough as basic intent offences and taking drinks and drugs counts as being reckless.
-All take risks but some criminal. Need reform as not fair to punish those who do the AR but not key element that allocates blame
-Intoxication seen as aggravating factor
Reforms
-Butler committee: dangerous intoxication, but others say shouldn’t be a defence
-Law commission report: specific and basic abolished and replace with MR is an integral fault or not an integral fault
-No drive for reform as alcohol costs a lot of money to NHS but provides money through licensing and taxes.
-Law does need reform but not urgent so will just stick to what have
Additional: soporific drugs
-Hardie: raised invol intox but voluntary took out of date Valium tablets. CA allowed appeal as he expected to calm him down
-Reasonable people would’ve thought the same so should have a defence
-Reckless to take other’s medication
-Heightens need for reform
