evaluation

• how does the disctinction between specific and basic intent affect the defence of intoxication?

  The distinction between the types of intention requires judges to determine what type of intention an offence requires. In cases like Majewski, voluntary intoxication can lead to liability even for basic intention crimes because becoming intoxicated is deemed reckless- thus generating the necessary men's rea.
• what is the conflict between public policy and legal principles regarding intoxication?

  Public policy aims to protect the public, it promotes good behaviour which would influence the law on intoxication.

  Legal principles require fault to be voluntarily assumed, or a deliberate risk must be taken for liability.

  Legislation like the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 restricts the defence of intoxication in cases like self-defence, this potentially disregards the principle that the defendant needs the right mental state to be guilty.
• how can involuntary intoxication impact criminal liability according to the law, and why can this be unfair?

  In cases like r v Kingston 1994, where the defendnat is made intoxicated involuntarily the law still holds them as guilty as having formed the necessary men's rea.

  This may be percieved as unfair because the Defendant didnt choose to become intoxicated, and may not be morally culpable for their actions.
• what did the butler committee in 1975 propose?

  They propsoed the creation fo a new offence called 'dangerous intoxication' to balance public protection and defendant rights.
• What is the benefit of what hte butler committee proposed in 1975?

  The new offence would deter members of the public from abusing substances rather than unfairly allowing the prosecution to show intoxication as the Men's rea of the offence- this would allow the acountability aspect of the law to be more apparent.
• what did the law commision propose in 1993?

  They proposed allowing evidence of voluntary intoxication for all offences related to men's rea, this would eliminate the majewski rules.
• what did the law commision report on intoxication and criminal liability in 2009 recognise?

  They recognised the problems of categorising offences. They said that current rules should be put into statutory form to give them certainty and clarity. Additionally, they drafted proposals which keep the majewski rules but without using specific and basic intent.
• In the law commision's report on intoxication and criminal liability in 2009, what did they reccomend putting in place instead of basic and specific intention?

  They reccomended integral fault elements that the prosecution would have to prove:

  Intention

  Knowledge as to something

  Belief as to something

  Fraud

  Dishonesty