Intoxication Evaluation EXAM

Question 1

Paragraph 1 (A)

Answer 1

Person should have personal autonomy, must be balanced against whats permissible for the good of society. State needs to protect vulnerable who could be victims of crimes. If intox always allowed as a defence, victim’s rights wouldn’t be protected

Question 2

Paragraph 1 (B)

Answer 2

Paternalistic approach: all intox substances treated similarly whether legal or illegal. distinction between legal/illegal could be reflected in more severe sentencing for intox caused by illegal drugs, not been taxed, drain social/medical/legal services the state provides for victims

Question 3

Paragraph 2 (A)

Answer 3

Allowing defence for specific recognises fundamental legal principle requiring D to form MR. However by not allowing basic it contradicts legal rules that require MR and AR to coincide

Question 4

Paragraph 2 (B)

Answer 4

D guilty of basic as getting drunk is reckless (Majewski). Normally for recklessness need to prove D saw risk of committing actual offence, but D only took risk of doing something stupid when drunk. Public policy/social paternalism outweighs legal principle

Question 5

Paragraph 3 (A)

Answer 5

Distinction between specific/basic unclear, based on policy and seems illogical to allow defence to some crimes not others

Question 6

Paragraph 3 (B)

Answer 6

No clear def of specific/basic, differing explanations from judges. beneficial if parliament provided list of offences that require MR

Question 7

Paragraph 4

Answer 7

Reform set out in Law Commission report 2009 on Intoxication and criminal liability. Keep vol/invol distinction, remove specific/basic distinction and provide a list of integral fault offences where intoxication could provide a defence