Evaluaton: General Defences (Intoxication and Consent)
Intoxication: One weakness of intoxication is that the specific/basic intent distinctions are illogical, the main reason for this is that there is no basic intent fall back position for theft. Theft is a specific intent crime and if the defendant was so intoxicated that they couldn't form the mens rea for theft then they can have the full defence of intoxication. Similarly, the offence of rape is a basic intent crime where as attempted rape is a specific intent crime. This is a weakness as these distinctions are illogical and it will result in injustices for the defendant and doesn't promote a certain approach to the law, as these creates a major loophole and does in fact allow intoxication as a defence. Another problem with intoxication is the inconsistency of the approach for intoxicated mistake. There is no defence of intoxicated mistake for basic or specific intent crimes unless the crime is criminal damage, as seen in the case of Jaggard v Dickinson. Here the defenda