AQA A2 Law Unit 3 - Evaluations - Intoxication

The Distinction between Specific and Basic Intent

Voluntary intoxication = Specific only 

Usually takes a subjective approach to the MR ( Don't know what you're doing = not guilty) 

• DPP v Majewski (1977) - Doesn't see the risk of their actions = still guilty as they were reckless

Specific Intent

• Many based on the mental element, but not for the lesser crimes

Judges

• Judges have to decide whether a crime is basic or specific 

Heard - Not clear whether sexual assult was specific or  basic ( Don't know whether intoxication can be used or not) 

The relationship between intoxication to other defences

Richardson and Irwin (1999) - Held friend over balcony whilst drunk, consent given by horseplay (was it genuine consent?)

- If drinking leads to a disease of the mind = insanity 

Coincidence of AR and MR 

DPP v Majewski - Ignores the idea that MR and AR must coincide 

O'Grady - Defendant committed the act some hours after drinking 

Public Policy 

Heavily grounded by public policy conciderations 

1. Intoxication is a major factor to many crimes

2. Balance the rights of the victim and the defendant 

Reforms

• Make a stronger distinction between basic and specific intent crimes ( Basic - suggests a level of intent, actually means recklessness)

Reccomendations 

• Keep Majewski rule but get rid of Specific and Basic
• Integral fault elements; 
• - Intention as to consequence
• - Knowledge as to something
• - Belief as to something
• - Fraud
• - Dishonesty

Defendant would not be guilty if the offence required a fault element, which cannot be proved

• Involuntary intoxication should be considered, regardless of fault element