Intoxication essay plan:

• However one of the drawbacks of this reform is that there is a high chance that Parliament and the government will not be intrigued to change this area of law because they are more likely to want to focus on the wider picture. Thus leading to a delay to the proposals being implemented into the legal system. 
• The final point of law that I will be considering when looking at the law of intoxication is relating to the reforms proposed by the Law commission regarding this defence. One of the benefits of the reforms is that they recommended that where the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated, the Law commission proposed for a general rule which mens rea is not an integral fault element, because the offence merely requires proof of recklessness. This means that a defendant should be treated as being aware of if they had been sober.
• This could then lead to more convictions and more justice for the victims, which is the main aim of criminal law. 
• Another point of law that I will be considering when looking at the law of intoxication is policy decisions. One of the benefits of this defence being mainly based on policy decisions is that many  offences are committed when the defendant is intoxicated. Statistics suggest that half of all violent crimes are committed by a defendant who is intoxicated through drink and/or drugs.
• However one of the disadvantages of this is that there is a conflict between public policy and legal principles. Public policy is based on public protection and the encouragement of good behaviour. Whereas legal principles impose liability where there is fault. This has meant that over the last 30 years or so it can be argued that public policy has become more dominate compared to legal principles. This means that majority of the victims are not receiving the right amount of justice due to the defendant being able to be acquitted and roaming around the streets. 
• Another point of law that I will be discussing is the way in which the judiciary handles the competing interests in the defence of intoxication. One of the advantages of the defence of intoxication is that the decisions are based on policy decisions, this means that the rights of the victim and the defendant are balanced. Also it is fair on the defendant because majority of crimes committed are when the defendants are intoxicated, this allows the defendant to achieve justice because they didn’t know how they would react to the alcohol and/or drugs they are taking.
• However there is a conflict between public policy and legal principles. This is because the legal principles states that if there is fault there needs to be liability that can be imposed. However the public policy matters are based on public protection and encouragement of good behaviour. This means that there is injustice happening because many of the defendants are getting away with their crimes due to the public policy overriding the legal principles of criminal liability. 
• However one of the disadvantages of intoxication is that the difficulties of this approach is that not every offence has a “fallback” option. If, for example, a defendant is charged with theft and successfully claims that they didn't form the men’s Rea because they were too intoxicated, there is no fallback option, the defendant will be not guilty of any offence and therefore there can be’ no conviction. This seems unfair for the victim.
• One of the point of law that I will be discussing is the use of “Fallback offences”. One of the advantages of this is that If the defendant intended to cause only minor harm to the victim, or damage to something other than a person, but the victim dies as a consequence, the defendant is not guilty of murder because they did not have the specific intent required.
• They could be liable for less serious offences (fallback offences), including manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This allows the courts to deal appropriately with the consequences of the defendant's behaviour and provide justice, even if the victim and their relatives may not agree.