intoxication evaluation

Question 1

what are the 4 evaluation points

Answer 1

Distinction between Basic and Specific Intent Crimes
Inconsistency on Fall-Back offences (voluntary intoxicated but can still get sentence reduced)
Public Policy vs. Legal Principle
Recklessness and Mens Rea

Question 1

Distinction between Basic and Specific Intent Crimes development

Answer 1

Offences treated differently meaning for BI crimes D can be guilty just by being intoxicated

Question 2

Distinction between Basic and Specific Intent Crimes examples

Answer 2

If there is no subjective mens rea there should be no liability (R v G and R 2003) regardless of the type of crime.
Majewski ignores this principle.
There is also confusion about the definition of Basic and Specific Intent offences as not all are clear (e.g. theft, burglary, sexual offences)

Question 3

Distinction between Basic and Specific Intent Crimes extra

Answer 3

Courts are discouraging reckless intoxication

Question 4

Inconsistency on Fall-Back offences development

Answer 4

If D uses defence successfully for SI crime, they may be charged and punished for a lesser offence, but not all offences have a fall-back option

Question 5

Inconsistency on Fall-Back offences examples

Answer 5

Murder can be downgraded to Manslaughter.
s.18 OAPA can be downgraded to s.20 OAPA.
Theft has no lesser offence so D walks free from court.

Question 6

Inconsistency on Fall-Back offences extra

Answer 6

Offences with no fall-back are usually less serious property offences as opposed to violent crimes

Question 7

Public Policy vs. Legal Principle development

Answer 7

Defense put emphasis on public policy (protecting public, justice for V’s) above legal principles of fault

Question 8

Public Policy vs. Legal Principle example

Answer 8

Public Policy says that judges, courts and government should do all they can to protect the public (including Victims).
Alcohol abuse is involved in 50% of crimes and also is a drain on NHS/Policing so courts have a duty to discourage it.
However the legal principle argument is that court should make sure D’s are not punished when they are not at fault (e.g. have no mens rea).
Kingston case shows with intoxication the court is more likely to support the Public Policy argument

Question 9

Public Policy vs. Legal Principle extra

Answer 9

Law is trying to discourage bad behavior and protect the public

Question 10

Recklessness and Mens Rea development

Answer 10

No respect for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

Question 11

Recklessness and Mens Rea example

Answer 11

The rule from Majewski which says voluntary intoxication amounts to recklessness and therefore means D has the mens rea seems to ignore this rule.
The decision to get drunk/high would have been made before D carried out the crime.
Also D will not always foresee likely risk of harm when they get intoxication.
However, it could be justified if it is seen as a continuing act (Fagan) where the intoxication is connected to the D’s actions once intoxicated, and therefore the rule is justified.

Question 12

Recklessness and Mens Rea extra

Answer 12

Could be seen as a continuing act (actus reus and mens rea existing at the same time)