Intoxication Evaluation

Question 1

Key points for introduction

Answer 1

There are complicated distinctions between:
- Basic/Specific Intent Crimes
- Voluntary and Involuntary Intoxication

Law tries to balance Principle and Public Policy

Question 2

Voluntary Intoxication Specific Intent

Answer 2

• Intoxication drops liability to a lesser included offence – [Beard]
• [Lipman] – Liable for Manslaughter not Murder because no MR from taking LSD

Question 3

AO3 for Voluntary Intoxication Specific Intent

Answer 3

• fit for purpose as the defendant is not thinking like sober people, but they remain guilty of an offence
• few crimes are specific intent, so its not very helpful
• Theft has no lesser version – making law inconsistent/needing reform

Question 4

Voluntary Intoxication Basic Intent

Answer 4

• No defence – [Majewksi]
• Intoxication is a reckless behaviour, and recklessness satisfies Basic Intent MR

Question 5

AO3 for Voluntary Intoxication Basic Intent

Answer 5

• Critics say the law needs reform urgently as it is not fair to punish those without direct MR
• Intoxication is often seen as an aggravating factor in sentencing

Question 6

explain Dutch Courage, with AO3

Answer 6

• If intoxication is used to gain the courage to commit a crime this is Dutch Courage and is no defence, - [Gallagher]

Question 7

Involuntary Intoxication Specific/Basic Intent

Answer 7

• Complete defence - only if there is no MR
• D’s can still have MR even if involuntarily intoxicated – [Kingston]
• If D takes something that made them intoxicated but was not meant to, then there is no recklessness and it is IV - [hardie - soporific drugs]

Question 8

AO3 For Involuntary Intoxication Specific/Basic Intent

Answer 8

• [Kingston] shows inconsistency - but Public Policy prevailed during conviction - drunken intent was still an intent
• [Hardie] - Arguably good decision as reasonable people would have thought the same as H so he should have a defence
  – However, reckless to take out of date medication prescribed for someone else

Question 9

Suggestions for Reform

Answer 9

• Butler Committee recommended an offence of dangerous intoxication
• No defence, just refer to in sentencing
• Critics say it would be hard to create a workable statute so sticking with what already exists is good enough

Question 10

Conclusion

Answer 10

• The law probably needs reform, but it is perhaps not urgent and unlikely to happen in practice.
• Parliaments Inertia
• Alcohol costs the NHS lots of money but huge revenue is generated by taxes