Intoxication Essay

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

• Defence can be used when D has inability to form MR
• Define vol and invol

Question 2

Para 1

Answer 2

• No distinction between legal and illegal substances
• Should be treated differently, illegal = more culpable.
• Not harsh enoufh if illegal substances used
• However, either can result in crim behaviour so decision reflects public policy being prioritised.

Question 3

Para 2

Answer 3

• Dutch courage
• Fair there is no defence where intention was present
• Public pleased, intoxication should not be a defence to intended murder.
• However, D may feel injustice = may claim the intoxicant pushed them to commit the offence which they wouldn’t have committed otherwise

Question 4

Para 3

Answer 4

• No clear distinction between vol and invol intoxication
• E.G. Allen - D made mistake about strength of wine, treat as vol intox
• Resulted in injustice if there was a genuine mistake, should be invol (reckless)
• Decision favoured public policy, not guilty = outrage

Question 5

Para 4

Answer 5

• Vol intox may be defence to some SI offences but D may be convicted of fall back BI offence (Sheehan and Moore)
• Good balance between justice for D and achieving public policy goals (proving behaviour is wrong).
• However, D’s convicted of lesser BI will feel harshly done (e.g. fall back offence for murder but not theft)

Question 6

Para 5

Answer 6

• Many reforms proposed
• Law Commission 2009, specific and basic intent divide should be removed to make defence fairer
• However, D may feel harshly done if they committed SI offence without MR and now has no defence