Intoxication

• 1st point

  • Contradicts law on mens rea- contemporaneity
  • But if basic intent was allowed, could be seen as too lenient, also the rule of "continuing situation" (Thaebo Meli) fixes the issue
• 2nd point

  • Distinction between specific and basic intent crimes, not done any where else
  • But, mens rea law is defined in all offences, may allow for people to get the defence who do not deserve it, also acts as a warning
• 3rd point

  • Law is not logical, majewski rules enacts recklessness, but surely a drunk person does understand the risk of harm
  • But, if didnt exist it would be a complete and general defence which would be an injustice on the victim, and people who get voluntarily drunk should be held responsible for their actions
• 4th point

  • Accused attitudes towards the defence, as some people get drunk to lose control but others simply want to have fun and one of they is more blameworthy than the other
  • But, it would be virtually impossible for the jury to distinct between the two of these things
• 5th point

  • Inconsistency, complete defence for some as they have no less crimes- theft, and may make people commit crimes
  • But, if there is no lesser crimes then they are obviously too far-fetched for them to be guilty of them and Dutch courage rule prevents this
• Reforms

  • Proposed by Law commission consultant paper 1993
  • abolish majewski rule
  • make it a total defence
  • replace it with the crime of causing harm when deliberately intoxicated