Intoxication Evaluation

• Unfair/Different Outcomes For Voluntary and Involuntary

  • argued to be unfair how D got intoxicated as impact on m/r is the same
  • artificial distinction that the law makes for public policy reasons
  • Majewski - distinction between basic intent offences and specific intent offences
  • problem of coincidence - ignores principle that a/r and m/r should coincide
• Problem Of The 'Fall Back' Theory

  • type of offence commit impacts the outcome
  • specific intent whilst voluntarily intoxicated - may be lower if there is a basic intent version (R v Lipman) e.g. s.18 - s.20
  • problematic - not every S.I.C has a B.I. version e.g. theft
  • d can have a complete defence and be acquitted, loophole
  • charge is tailored so defence can be unavailable - unfair
  • justice for V as D cannot slip through the net, accountable for actions
• Harsh Decisions

  • sympathy towards d's involuntarily intoxicated
  • narrow application - if d has m/r then unavailable (R v Kingston)
  • decision criticised by academics such as Professor Clarkson
  • ignored fact that d was not to blame for intoxication and conviction was harsh
  • however, may be due to type of crime - public policy reasons
  • law needs to be fair and protect v
  • to the v, it won't matter if it was because of being spiked
• No Defence for Drunken Mistake

  • s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - cannot rely
  • R v O'Grady - no defence
  • R v Williams (Gladstone) - sober person can make a serious mistake and use the defence of mistake
  • policy reason - punish people taking intoxicating substances
  • willing to enforce harsh (and unjust) standards
  • unfairness - may have made the same mistake sober
• Hard to Balance Personal Responsibility with Public Protection

  • drinking alcohol is legal, individuals have autonomy over how much they consume
  • difficult to balance individual freedom of choice and personal responsibility with public protection
  • state has chosen to limit intoxication - only used when appropriate and not an excuse
  • state should intervene because excessive consumption can cause hige problems for criminal justice system and NHS
  • Law Commission Report (2009) - 1/3 of victims of domestic violence say their assailant had been drinking beforehand
  • annual cost of alcohol-related crimes is around £7.3 billion
  • balance rights of D against rights of V
• Reform

  • Law Commission 1995 - codifying existing law in the Offence Against the Person Bill 1998
  • abolish terms specific and basic intent crimes
  • instead, categorise offences as those where MR is integral and not integral
  • voluntary intoxication - treated as being aware of anything he would have been aware of if sober
  • no reforms have been made to common law, unclear whether due to opposition or lack of parliamentary time