A03

P1

The distinction between specific and basic intent crimes is confusing and inconsistent

Dp1

Majweski - voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent crimes because becoming intoxicated is seen as being reckless. However it can still be used for specific intent is the D lacked MR

H1

This creates uncertainty and makes the law difficult for juries to apply fairly. reform is needed to simplify the rules and improve consistency

P2

Needs to better protect the public from dangerous intoxicated offenders

Dp2

Currently tries to balance fairness woth social utility

Richardson and Irwin - jury had to consider whether sober Ds would have forseen the risk

H2

This may allow Ds to escape conviction despite causing harm while drunk. Reform would strengthen public confidence and ensure greater protection

P3

Current intox rules may lead to unfair outcomes for Ds that genuinely didnt form mr

Dp3

Sheehan and moore - drunken intent is still an intent

Defendant can still be guilty when heavily intoxicated

H3

May be unfair where the Ds judgement and understanding were seriously impaired . Reform is needed to ensure liability is based on actual blameworthiness

P4

Confusing distinction between voluntary and involuntary intox

Dp 4

R v Kingston - A person that accidentally consumed alcohol/drugs that was stronger than they anticipated is still voluntary intoxication yet when Ds drink is spiked they have a full defence. Creates inconsistency where both Ds may have been equally inaware of their actions

H4

Law commission 2009 suggested where intoxication was involuntary, the jury should decide if the intoxication prevented them from forming MR. Should only be 4 situations. Spiked drinks, taken under duress, medical purpose and when they genuinely believed they werent taking an intoxicant