EVALUATION: INTOXICATION

QUESTION 1: The law on intoxication has developed in accordance with public policy rather than being based on principle. Discuss

INTRO- define intoxication.

P1- Public policy vs legal principal

  • Involuntary intoxication: R v Kingston- guilty at the crown court- sexual assault.

  • CoA- not guilty- because a “drugged intent is not an intent” and he lacked mens rea- Lord Taylor said that a person is not responsible for a condition produced by the fraud of another- lack of blameworthiness

  • HoL reversed CoA decision- “Drugged intent is still an intent”

  • protection of the public and victims rights

  • balancing interests of D and V

P2- Illogical distinction between basic and specific intent offences

  • specific intent was first coined in DPP V BEARD- device invented by the courts

  • basic intent developed alongside it- MAJEWSKI

  • there is no clear test for defining each of them- ARBITARY

  • basic intent offences like s20 and s47 can be committed with intention

  • why can intoxication be avail to murder but not to manslaughter? (D can argue in both cases that they lack MR- LIPMAN)

  • Law commission wants to abolish the distinction’ “confusing and misleading”

P3- Inconsistency in cases

  • R V RICHARDSON AND IRWIN conflicted with Majewski rules-

  • allowed a defence to men in this case whom had caused serious harm to a friend during a drinking game- horseplay

  • CoA- convictions quashed, jury should have been directed to consider whether D’s would have realised the risk had they not been drinking

  • sometimes accidents happen- r v brady

  • Clarkson and Keating have argued that a drunken D is not as blameworthy as someone who is sober and commits an offence

  • CoA upheld their appeal on the grounds that they ought to have been convicted if they themselves when sober, would have forseen the risk and therefore their convictions were quashed

P4- Voluntary v Involuntary

  • R V HARDIE- took sedative drugs- had the opposite effect- crim damage/arson- basic intent offence

  • not guilty as found he lacked MR

  • could raise Kingston here again- was outcome here fair compared to outcome in Hardie?

  • intoxicated mistakes- D who is intoxicated and makes a mistake can try to argue they didn’t have the mens rea but diffucult to raise

  • problem of fallback offences- none for theft (murder-m/s; s.18- s.20; s.20-s.47; s.47- common assault’

  • intoxication is a complete defence to some crimes but not all

  • some offences have no fall back provided (R V O’GRADY)

  • leads to injustice as some D’s are acquitted; some have offences reduced and some are found guilty of full offence

REFORM

  • Law Comission 1993- Majewski rules are ‘arbitrary and unfair’

  • but keep the vol and involv distinction

  • LC 2009- ‘law should be more comprehensive’

  • 1. abolish the misleading terms ‘basic’ and ‘specific’ intent

  • 2. create a new offence of ‘dangerous intoxication’ suggested by Butler committee