A question about Woollin and drunkenness?

I'm studying intoxication as a so-called "defence" (although I appreciate that it isn't). I'm just looking at a problem question which requires the application of Woollin and virtual certainty. I've established all the elements of virtual certainty but not the last part where the defendant has to appreciate that the outcome was virtually certain. I'm just wondering how drunkenness affects D's ability to appreciate this, if at all?

Whether D appreciates something, here that a result is virtually certain to occur, is a question of fact. A drunken appreciation is nevertheless an appreciation. Drunkenness never provides a defence where D actually foresees or intends the prohibited consequence; it's merely a factor in assessing whether mens rea is established (and this is made particularly clear by Kingston​), unless we're dealing with basic intent offences, in which case it becomes an inculpatory doctrine extraneous to considerations of whether mens rea was in fact formed.

Hmm. I knew all that, I think I'm getting myself more mixed up than I need to be. So essentially, whether D appreciated the virtual certainty of X happening is left for the jury?

So then, how do you go about dealing with that part in a problem question? How on earth am I supposed to know whether D appreciated something? Can I use the drunkenness to say that D was less likely to appreciate something? To what extent?

Sorry, I wasn't sure what you were asking.

Yep, it's for the jury. So you can basically say whatever you like. I don't know if I'd talk about "likely" -- D either foresaw the result or he didn't. You could go down the route of "if he foresaw x as a virtual certainty, then y liability would arise". I don't think pure evaluations of fact are terribly important so long as they're vaguely sensible. Remember that juries are just random lay people who have to decide one way or the other (though perhaps mention that they have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, and that drunkenness may raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the result was foreseen).

Not sure if any of that helps. It really is just a matter of whatever you think on the facts. I'm sure it's arguable either way.

Oki dokey.

So, just generally in a problem question, if I come across a factually issue, do I have to deal with both sides (so if the jury decide X then the following will happen... but if the jury decide Y then these other things will happen...). Or is it okay for me to simply give one side, according to what I think the jury would come up with and finish the problem on that basis?

Sorry for all the questions - I screwed up the problem questions in my mock and I'm not really sure how to approach them.

Sorry, just to let you know I do intend to reply to this (though I don't know how much help I can be); had a moot sprang on me last night for which the skeleton is due in tomorrow, so it's been kinda hectic.

Oh don't worry!

Ok, here are my ideas; not sure how helpful this is, and I only got mid 2.is in my recent mock problem questions, so it's not like I have especial expertise.

You don't have to deal with both sides. It depends. It's only really if it's a purely normative test, if I had plenty of time and if I wanted to talk about the law involved in each result that I'd deal with both results; I mean, otherwise you'd end up having to answer like 32 strands per problem question, because you'd have to answer every combination

If it's a purely normative question, such as one on reasonableness, or a straight out question of inference of fact such as the one here, and I didn't have tonnes of time I'd usually just pick a way to go, and so long as either way is defensible I'd go the way which'd allow me to talk about either (i) the law I knew best or (ii) if I knew the law well either way, the law that gave me the chance to have the best discussion. (I know those are interlinked.)

Really, I think the ultimate aim with a problem question is to construe the facts to your advantage so as to allow you to talk about the law you want to talk about. If you're at the end of the line, so to speak, as actually with the rest of the problem, so long as you set the tests out for a given finding properly and make a vaguely defensible one, you'll be fine.

Hope that helps