Intoxication evaluation

• Point 1 - Voluntary intoxication and specific intent crime

  • Arguable fair
  • Only a defence if D was so intoxicated they could not form mens ea
  • Reflects lack of a blameworthy state
  • Not an automatic defence for serious crimes
• Point 1- Developed Point

  • Lipman
  • Did not form the intention to kill or cause serious harm to his girlfriend
  • Genuinely believed that he was killing a giant snake
  • Would have been wrong for him to be guilty of murder
  • This principle protects D due to their lack of blameworthy state of mind
• Point 1 -Well Developed Point

  • Fall back offence ensures that justice is done(to an extent)
  • Reflects that the D is still at fault
  • HOWEVER, not all offences have a basic intent equivalen
• Point 2 - Voluntary intoxication is illogical

  • Voluntary intoxication can be a defence for specific intent
  • Cannot be a defence for basic intent regardless of whether it not the D formed the mens rea
• Point 2 -Developed Point

  • Majewski
  • Began voluntarily becoming intoxicated 36 hours before the crime
  • So intoxicated that he could not have formed the mens rea and yet he was still liable
  • Arguably unfair for the D
• Point 2 -Well Developed Point

  • HOWEVER, the principle can be justified
  • D cannot use intoxication as an excuse
  • Principle recognises the D’s blameworthiness(they voluntary became intoxicated and so are at fault)
  • Protection towards society,lowering crime and reducing pressure on NHS for alcohol related issues
• Point 3 - Involuntary intoxication and adverse reactions

  • This is a strength in the law
  • Good as the D did not know that they would get into this state
  • They are not blameworthy
• Point 3-Developed Point

  • Hardie
  • Took valium which he expected to calm him down
  • Aggressiveness and unpredictability is not a normal effect of valium but D experienced them
  • Acquitted of the basic intent crime of arson
  • Positive for D as he didnt know that this state would happen
  • Not blameworthy
• Point 3-Well Developed Point

  • HOWEVER, the Law Commission in the 2009 report criticised this position
  • Suggested that an adverse reaction from medication ‘taken for a proper medical purpose’ should be involuntary intoxication
  • Taking somebody else’s medication is reckless.taking medication for an ‘improper purpose’ is reckless
  • Recklessly taking medication should be voluntary intoxication
• Point 4 - Involuntary intoxication

  • Rues for this are much clearer and fairer
  • Fair on D and ref;ects that it was not their fault
  • Fair on V as D will still be responsible if they did from the mens rea
  • Balance the competing interests well
• Point 4-Developed Point

  • Would be wrong to hold D responsible for something that they did not form the mens rea for when it wasn't their fault that they were intoxicated
  • Ross V Lord Advocate(was spiked and attacked people)
• Point 4-Well Developed Point

  Was the decision in Kingston fair?

  • It was argued that he would not have committed the act had he not been indicated it was only because his inhibitions have been lowered

  ‘’Desire is not the same as intent’’

  • Professor Clarkeson
  • Agues that the law is too harsh and that if the only reason a person commits the crime is because a third party removes their control than he should not be liable for his offence