1. Maybe a partial defence to D (not resulting in an acquittal to certain crimes)
2. The rules os Majewski ask whether the crime committed was a basic or specific intent crime.
- Basic - voluntary intoxication is no defence. Because D was already reckless by getting himself in that state.
- Specific - Partial defence. D is given the lesser in built basic intent crime, e.g. section18 = section 20.
1. Full defence to any offence (which leads to an acquittal - unlike a partial defence which does not lead to an acquittal).
2. The rules of Kingston applies - "Did the spiked drink create intent" or "Did it merely dis-inhibit D".
3.Allen - only applicable if the strength of the alcohol is misjudged (treated as voluntary intoxication).
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Section 76)
1. Palmer (Lord Morris) - D need not weigh up the nicety or the exact defencive measure as long as he reacts instinctively and honestly to the heat of the moment.
2. Ther is no duty to retreat (R v Bird)
3. The law even allows the victim to make the pre-emptive strike (AGRef2)
1. AGRef6 (General Rule) - the law generally will not accept concent at offences at or more than section 47 (only applies to common assault).
2. It was outlined in R v Brown that it must pass the public interest test.
3. Exception (implied consent)
- Horseplay (R v Jones) - not in the publics interest to ban horseplay.
- Tattoo's & piercings (R v Wilson) - not the role of the court to interfere in the privacy of anothers matrimonial bedroom.
- Regulated sports (R v Billinghurst) - D was charged because he went 'off the ball' rule.
Legal definition bares no resemblance with the medical definition.
Mc Naughten - sets out a three part test for insanity:
1. D sufferes from a defect of reason (R v Clarke)
2. defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind (R v Sullivan)