Intoxication Evaluation

Question 1

Social paternalism and public policy

Answer 1

• Should have personal autonomy, but needs to be balanced against what is permissible for the good of society
• If intoxication was always a defence, the victim’s rights would not be protected

Question 2

Mens rea and legal principles

Answer 2

• By not allowing the defence for basic intent offences the law contradicts the normal legal rules that require AR and MR to coincide
• Public policy seem to outweigh legal principles

Question 3

Specific intent and basic intent

Answer 3

• Distinction between them is unclear, based on policy and seems illogical to allow a defence to some crimes and not others
• Inconsistency: where D is charged with murder/s.18 they can use the defence, but there is a fall-back offence so D is still guilty of manslaughter or s.20. However there is no fall-back with property offences so intox becomes a full defence

Question 4

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 4

• Recognises need to protect those not at fault
• Does not treat mistake as to the strength of the intoxicating substance as involuntary intoxication, ensuring the public are protected and the defence is not exploited

Question 5

Where were ideas for reform set out

Answer 5

2009 Law Commission report on Intoxication and Criminal Liability

Question 6

Reform

Answer 6

• Keep vol/invol distinction
• Abolish specific/basic distinction and provide a list of offences where MR is needed
• Suggest list of situations where D should be regarded as involuntarily intoxicated