Evaluation of Intoxication

• Intoxication is a case-by case defence so it can be fit for purpose.
• The legal principle suggest that there is a defence for criminals who have impaired thinking due to alcohol, drugs, and other substances.
• Public policy reasons makes the defence restrictive and an easy excuse for criminality.
• There are complicated divisions in law which can cause problems like specific and basic intent in voluntary intoxication.
• Intoxication is not a "true defence" as it applies, if the defendant has no mens rea then they are missing one basic element of a crime.
• Voluntary intoxication is the defendant choosing to be in that position.
• Sheehan and Moore: Drunk intent is still intent.
• For specific intent crimes like murder, theft, and s18 GBH, the liability can drop to a lesser crime.
• In Lipman, there was no mens rea for murder so they dropped the charge to manslaughter.
• However, theft has no lesser crime which can be problematic and makes the law inconsistent.
• Few crimes require specific intent so it doesn't help much
• In crimes of basic intent, the law is clear and there is no defence.
• In Majewski, the combination of drinks and drugs led to them committing several basic intent offences. Recklessness was enough because Majewski voluntarily took the drink and drugs.
• Intoxication is seen as an aggravating factor.
• Gallagher: Dutch courage. Having intent before getting intoxicated.
• Involuntary intoxication occurs through no fault of the defendant and is a complete defence, making it very tight and hard to succeed with.
• The case of Kingston highlights inconsistency.
• Kingston said he was involuntarily drunk because his drink was spiked. He was convicted as the assault was intentional (drunk intent is still intent), a public policy argument.
• However, in Kingston's case, the Court of Appeal overruled that and said it wasn't his fault he was drunk due to the spiking, a legal principle argument.
• Kingston's case was again passed on and the HL restored the conviction saying that public policy was key. This shows that different court levels can have different views.
• The Butler Committee recommended an offence of dangerous intoxication whilst others say intoxication should be no defence and just dealt with in sentencing.
• Alcohol costs the NHS lots of money but huge revenue is generated by taxes and the licensing industry has strong lobbying powers.
• Critics say it would be hard to create a workable statute so what already exists is good enough.
• The judiciary only occasionally say that the intoxication laws should be reformed.
• The law probably need reform, but it is perhaps not urgent and unlikely to happen in practice.