intoxication evaluation mind map

Question 1

narrow approach to involuntary intox: fundamental principle of the defence: it only applies if

Answer 1

intoxication has negated the mens rea: KINGSTON/SHEEHAN/ GALLAGHER

Question 2

narrow approach to involuntary intox: what does it mean that the defence only applies if intoxication has negated the mens rea

Answer 2

lowered inhibitions as a result of intoxication is not a defence and ‘a drunken intent’ is still an intent

Question 3

narrow approach to involuntary intox: what can it be justified for that lowered inhibitions are not a defence

Answer 3

for voluntary intoxication as D is still responsible to some extent for their conduct

Question 4

narrow approach to involuntary intox: what could it be argued that lowered inhibitions not a defence for is unjust

Answer 4

when applied to cases of involuntary intoxication such as KINGSTON

Question 5

inconsistent fall back offences: what is there for some ‘specific intent’ offences

Answer 5

a similar fall back offence of basic intent of which D can be convicted if the mens rea was negated

Question 6

inconsistent fall back offences: what can those charged with murder be instead convicted of

Answer 6

manslaughter

Question 7

inconsistent fall back offences: what can those charged with s18 instead be convicted of

Answer 7

s20

Question 8

inconsistent fall back offences: what is the issue with fallback offences

Answer 8

there is no coherent system of them and whether one exists depends on what d is charged with

Question 9

inconsistent fall back offences: for offences such as … no fall back offences exist

Answer 9

theft and robbery

Question 10

inconsistent fall back offences: what may intoxication be to an offence of theft/robbery

Answer 10

a complete defence

Question 11

public policy v legal principle: basic principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted of a crime without:

Answer 11

mens rea

Question 12

public policy v legal principle: what does public policy demand

Answer 12

people be held responsible for unacceptable intoxicated behavior

Question 13

public policy v legal principle: what has the law had to develop to balance the conflicting interest of law and public policy

Answer 13

rules- these mainly favour public policy

Question 14

public policy v legal principle: what do the majewski rules ignore the principle that

Answer 14

actus reus and mens rea must coincide

Question 15

public policy v legal principle: what does the O’ GRADY case state

Answer 15

intoxicated mistakes cannot lead to self defence

Question 16

specific/ basic intent definition: what is the concept of specific and basic intent

Answer 16

unnecessary, illogical and inconsistent

Question 17

specific/ basic intent definition: basic intent are crimes…

Answer 17

that can be committed recklessly

Question 18

specific/ basic intent definition: specific intent crimes require

Answer 18

mens rea that goes beyond the actus reus

Question 19

specific/ basic intent definition: how is the aim of the specific and basic intent rules sensible

Answer 19

in that those who are reckless about their intoxication should usually be responsible

Question 20

specific/ basic intent definition: it would be a lot clearer if parliament implemented

Answer 20

the law commissions proposal that integral fault elements must be proved for some offences and the majewski rules followed for others

Question 21

law commission proposals: what does the law commission report propose to abolish

Answer 21

the misleading terms ‘specific’ and ‘basic’ intent

Question 22

law commission proposals: for selected offences what could be introduced

Answer 22

integral fault elements that must be proved before d can be convicted

Question 23

law commission proposals: for offences where IFE are not required what would suffice for the men rea

Answer 23

recklessness as to intoxication, as in the current majewski rules

Question 24

law commission proposals: what would the law commission proposals clear up

Answer 24

any doubt as to whether intoxication can or cant be a defence