First 232 words of the document:
Intoxication is caused by drugs or alcohol. To use the defence the D must be so intoxicated that he is
incapable of forming the mens rea of the offence. If D has the mens rea before his intoxication, then
this is not a defence. In Gallagher, D needed "Dutch Courage" before he could kill his wife, which he
had earlier boasted about doing.
If D's intoxication is involuntary than this is a full defence for both basic and specific intent crimes. The
most common example is having a drink "spiked" or having an odd reaction to medicine (Hardie). The
strength of the intoxicant is never a relevant factor. In Allen, D thought he was drinking ordinary
wine, when it was actually high in alcohol, was not relevant as D had chosen to consume the intoxicant
in the first place.
If D's intoxication is voluntary, then the defence depends on whether D has committed a basic or
specific intent offence. Because the offence is basic intent, this that voluntary intoxication is not a
defence for D's actions because his intoxication was his own voluntary reckless act (Majewski).
Voluntary intoxication is a full defence for specific intent crimes, as it would be difficult to prove D
has the MR for the crime.