Have to decide if it is voluntary or involuntary intoxication and if it is a basic or specific intent crime
Key Case: Majewski - Voluntary Intoxication + Basic Intent crime = no defence on intoxication (guilty) 'reckless course of conduct'
Lipman: Voluntary Intoxication + specific intent crime + no MR = no MR of intention because that is what you need for a specific intent crime therefore not guilty
Attorney General for N.I v Gallagher: Voluntary Intoxication +specific intent offence + MR = guilty because he had the MR of intention before the intoxication 'Dutch courage' will not negate the MR
Kingston: Involuntary Intoxication + specific intent + MR = guilty because 'drunken intent is still intent'
Hardie: Involuntary intoxication + basic intent + no MR = not guilty because he took a legal drug in a legal manner so therefore he was never reckless
Sheehan & Moore: too drunk to form speciif cintent for murder but found guilty of basic intent manslaughter
O'Grady: a drunken mistake for self-denfecne means the D will not have a defence of self-defence