Intoxication Essay Question Practice
The defence of intoxication is not fit for purpose and needs to be reformed urgently (25 Marks)
The common law defence of intoxication has been updated as newer cases have
come forward, it can be argued that it is fit for purpose. The legal principle
proposes that a defence should be available for those who commit crimes when
their thinking is impaired due to drink, drugs or other substances with similar
effects. Public policy restricts this defence, otherwise criminals could easily use
this excuse and there would be no justice. Crimes of specific and basic intent in
voluntary intoxication are more complicated areas of law which cause issues. It
can be argued that Intoxication might not be a true defence because it only
applies if the defendant has no mens rea, so part of the basic elements of the
crime is missing. This has been criticised greatly but there has been no reform
for this.
Voluntary intoxication is when the defendant has put themselves in that scenario
by taking substances which can impair their ability to think. In Sheehan and
Moore, it was said that a “drunken intent is still an intent”. For crimes such as
murder and theft, intoxication drops liability to a lesser included offence (DPP v
Beard). In R v Lipman, Lipman did not have the mens rea for murder due to
taking LSD but he was still liable for manslaughter. This shows that the defence
was fit for purpose as the defendant was not thinking like a sober person but
remained guilty of the offence. However, this is still criticised by many as very
few crimes require specific intent. Theft is an issue as there is no lesser offence
to go down to, this means that the law needs to be reformed as it inconsistent.
Crimes of basic intent have no defence and the law is clear. For example, in
Majewski, a variety of drink and drugs led to several different basic intent
offences being committed. The defendant had voluntarily taken substances over
a 24-hour period, recklessness was enough mens rea. Public policy concerns are
met by the defence. Some risks cross the line into criminality. Nevertheless,
critics say that the law needs reform because it is not fair to punish those who do
the actus reus without the key element that provides blame and justifies
punishment. Intoxication is also seen as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
There is the issue that the intoxication may have taken place sometime before
the offence was committed, when there was no thought of commission. This is
seen as unfair.
Intoxication in the past has been used to gain the courage to commit a crime.
This is known as Dutch Courage and is not a defence. (Gallagher) This prevents
criminals from using this excuse and a defence.
Involuntary intoxication takes place without the fault of the defendant. It is a
complete defence and hard to succeed with using it as a defence. The defendant
must have no awareness of the intoxication whatsoever, this makes it hard to
prove. R v Kingston was one of the cases where inconsistency was shown.
Kingston showed at his trial that he had been involuntarily intoxicated due to his
drink being drugged. He was still convicted because his assault was intentional.
As in Sheehan and Moore, a drunken intent is still an intent, this is the public
policy argument. The Court of Appeal said that Kingston should have a defence
The defence of intoxication is not fit for purpose and needs to be reformed urgently (25 Marks)
The common law defence of intoxication has been updated as newer cases have
come forward, it can be argued that it is fit for purpose. The legal principle
proposes that a defence should be available for those who commit crimes when
their thinking is impaired due to drink, drugs or other substances with similar
effects. Public policy restricts this defence, otherwise criminals could easily use
this excuse and there would be no justice. Crimes of specific and basic intent in
voluntary intoxication are more complicated areas of law which cause issues. It
can be argued that Intoxication might not be a true defence because it only
applies if the defendant has no mens rea, so part of the basic elements of the
crime is missing. This has been criticised greatly but there has been no reform
for this.
Voluntary intoxication is when the defendant has put themselves in that scenario
by taking substances which can impair their ability to think. In Sheehan and
Moore, it was said that a “drunken intent is still an intent”. For crimes such as
murder and theft, intoxication drops liability to a lesser included offence (DPP v
Beard). In R v Lipman, Lipman did not have the mens rea for murder due to
taking LSD but he was still liable for manslaughter. This shows that the defence
was fit for purpose as the defendant was not thinking like a sober person but
remained guilty of the offence. However, this is still criticised by many as very
few crimes require specific intent. Theft is an issue as there is no lesser offence
to go down to, this means that the law needs to be reformed as it inconsistent.
Crimes of basic intent have no defence and the law is clear. For example, in
Majewski, a variety of drink and drugs led to several different basic intent
offences being committed. The defendant had voluntarily taken substances over
a 24-hour period, recklessness was enough mens rea. Public policy concerns are
met by the defence. Some risks cross the line into criminality. Nevertheless,
critics say that the law needs reform because it is not fair to punish those who do
the actus reus without the key element that provides blame and justifies
punishment. Intoxication is also seen as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
There is the issue that the intoxication may have taken place sometime before
the offence was committed, when there was no thought of commission. This is
seen as unfair.
Intoxication in the past has been used to gain the courage to commit a crime.
This is known as Dutch Courage and is not a defence. (Gallagher) This prevents
criminals from using this excuse and a defence.
Involuntary intoxication takes place without the fault of the defendant. It is a
complete defence and hard to succeed with using it as a defence. The defendant
must have no awareness of the intoxication whatsoever, this makes it hard to
prove. R v Kingston was one of the cases where inconsistency was shown.
Kingston showed at his trial that he had been involuntarily intoxicated due to his
drink being drugged. He was still convicted because his assault was intentional.
As in Sheehan and Moore, a drunken intent is still an intent, this is the public
policy argument. The Court of Appeal said that Kingston should have a defence
