i.

However, the law should place greater focus on the primary purpose of Andy
himself, for which he may be found liable for murder. For instance, in R v Cox
1992: it was established that what can never be lawful is the use of drugs with
the primary purpose of hastening the moment of death” this establishes that
while doctors can use methods such as drugs to ease the process of death this
desire for “easement” can be the only intention. This is where Andy could
potentially be found liable for murder, as his defence cannot hold due to the fact,
that he had an ulterior intention. Recognising Boa as someone who bullied him
mercilessly at school, gives rise to the idea that he did this for revenge rather
than to ease death. This is further worsened by the fact he volunteered to turn
off his life support which further supplements the personal element given their
history. Hence due to the facts established, it is undoubtedly unjust that we
grant doctors such a degree of “moral elbow room” in circumstances of
euthanasia, they must be held accountable to the same standard of indirect
intent as any other reasonable person. (Maybe include as critical analysis
instead? Of facts)

Criminal Law Exam trimmings

 Sheehan (a drunk intent is still intent)

 Define intoxication, - effects on the individual and how that affects the two
spheres


 Law does give rise to both coexisting –

 define basic and specific intent

 Majewski  crimes of specific intent and basic intent both exist
within separate spheres, if you are planning to do something
seriously bad and get so drunk that you do it. 
 Gallagher  - voluntary intoxication - dutch courage 

 The law does not alleviate those who are involuntarily intoxicated and do heinous
crimes - Kingston - If you were drugged without consent and then made to do a
specific intent crime ie murder rape not responsible 

 Conclusion Both spheres eventually collapse - cases of withdrawal the sphere of

intoxication law extends too far. If someone stopped drinking and was to suffer
withdrawal symptoms the law of intoxication will still hold me to the same standard. 
 Harrison 

 Hence it was understandable as his appeal was later allowed as this “Represented a
significant extension” of the law.
 demonstrates the reach of intoxication rules has extended too far ()

 The law of intoxication through the prior fault intoxication rules now allows those
were recently intoxicated to suffer the consequences of inebriation, long after they
were in the wrong state of mind. And as a result, public individuality has been
compromised