Intoxication

-Will only work as a 'defence' when it removes D's mens rea.

1). Type of intoxication- In/Voluntary

2). Type of crime- Basc/Specifc

Specific intent offences- D must have intention

Basic intent offences- D can be reckless (ie involuntary manslaughter).

Voluntary intoxication and specific intent:

Lipman- D was trying to protect himself, didn't have MR for murder, convicted of UAM. Reckless in taking drugs.

Sheehan and Moore- Intoxication removed MR, convicted of UAM.

Gallagher- Had prior intent, aimed to kill wife before he drank for 'dutch courage'. If D has the required MR of the specific intent offence, he will be guilty despite the intoxicated state. Continuining act.

Voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes

Basic intent offences can be either intentionally/recklessly.

Majewski- Voluntarily getting intoxicated.

Voluntary intoxication will never be a defence to basic intent crimes as D will always have been reckless in becoming intoxicated and this can be transferred to satisfy the MR of the crime.

Involuntary intoxication and specific intent offenecs

Kingston- D still had the mens rea, intoxication did not negate it. If D has the MR of a specific intent offence, he will be guilty despite the intoxication. If the intoxication negates the MR, he will not be guilty.

Allen- He did not know the concentration of the alcohol, but still considered voluntary. Must be completely involuntary.

Involuntary intoxication and basic intent offences

Hardie- Did not know effects of taking valium.

When D is involuntarily intoxicated, he has not been reckless about getting intoxicated. If D has not been reckless in the offence either, he will not have the MR required and will be found not guilty.