Intoxication

• Contrary to the law on mens rea- Criticism

  Voluntary intoxication D is guilty of a "basic intent" crime as they were "reckless" in getting intoxicated in the first place- which may have been a considerable time earlier

  Appears to contradict the rule of contemporaneity- M.R and A.R must be present at the same time
• However- contrary to the law on mens rea

  Could be considered fair as it would be too lenient on a defendant if he would be allowed to have the defence of simply because he became intoxicated a while before he committed a basic intent crime. The whole process could be seen as a "continuing act" (Thaebo Meli) and therefore the earlier mens rea is justified.
• Distinction between basic and specific intent crimes- Criticism

  This distinction is only used for the defence of intoxication. The law should either allow intoxication as a defence or not and not confuse the issue by allowing it for some offences but not others. It should not be that every offence can be categorised simply as either specific or basic intent.
• However- Distinction between basic and specific intent crimes

  Virtually all offences have the mens rea defined. The Majewski rule is a common sense approach that may otherwise give the defence of intoxication to someone who does not deserve it. It is logical to not allow those who voluntarily get intoxicated that they will be responsible for the crimes they commit, it also acts as a warning.
• Law on intoxication is not logical- Criticism

  The rules of DPP v Majewski set out that D was reckless in getting intoxicated and then further reckless in committing the subsequent crime. Recklessness requires someone to be aware of the risk, but if someone is drunk they are rarely aware of the risk of causing harm, so this may be unfair for the D.
• However- Law on intoxication is not logical

  If this reason was not allowed it means that both types of intoxication would be a general and complete defence and most likely lead to injustice on the side of the victim. D should take responsibility for his reckless actions and therefore his reckless crimes.
• Accused attitude to intoxication- Criticism 


  Some people become intoxicated so that they lose complete control. However some go out to get drunk and have fun, but there is no distinction between the two of these scenarios. Especially if the first could be more blameworthy than the latter.
• However- Accused attitude to intoxication

  It would be virtually impossible for the jury to distinguish between and would make a complicated defence even more confusing
• Inconsistency- Criticism 


  For some specific intent crimes there is no corresponding lesser crime. In such situations intoxication is a complete defence, such as theft. This means that for some crimes it is a complete defence and others it is not.
• However- Inconsistency 


  For the defences that have no lesser offence the D should be allowed a complete defence as any alternative would be too far removed from the original crime and would therefore be not guilty. It might encourage people to commit crimes intoxicated- but the dutch courage rule does not allow this
• Reforms 


  Recommendations for reform were made by the law comission Consultation paper 1993.

  • suggested DPP v Majewski should be abolished
  • Intoxication should become a total offence
  • Should be completely replaced with a new crime that of causing harm whilst deliberately intoxicated
  • But in 1995 found that the Majewski rules are fair and worked well