I don’t mean to sound too harsh, but until you set out your reasoning in a clearer fashion, it is difficult to give you more constructive feedback on your answer content without basically doing it for you. Perhaps you could try re-writing it in the way I’ve suggested and we can give more specific comments after that?
(1) For murder, you first need to consider whether you think A has the MR for murder, I.e. an intention to kill or cause GBH. If not, then the intoxication point as far as murder is concerned is not relevant. Do you think intentionally stabbing someone twice in the thigh demonstrates an intent to kill or cause GBH? Why/why not? Work out whether you think the intent is there first before you go on to consider the potential impact of intoxication.
(2) For murder and MS, you need to think about the victim’s haemophilia, and the application of the thin skull rule.
(3) For MS, you need to consider whether you can make out constructive manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, or both. What do you think? The impact of intoxication on the analysis will depend on which you are considering.
(4) Whether you need to mention s. 20 at all is dependent on whether you think A intended to cause GBH or not. If he did, then you have your MR for murder and you don’t really need to mention s. 20 at all. If you’re not sure about the intent to cause GBH, then how about using s. 20 as your unlawful act for constructive manslaughter purposes? I would weave any s. 20 analysis into your manslaughter section rather than considering it as a stand-alone offence. In reality, there is no way something like this would only be charged as a s. 20.
(5) Attempted rape is tricky to prove. What would you use as your next most serious sexual offence if you couldn’t prove attempted rape?
(6) Good job on the JE liability. Bruce’s comments about Albert in interview are helpful too. Make sure that you are applying post-Jogee JE principles.