Law 03 Defences Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication: Is not a defnce as getting drunk is reckless and is guilty 

Majewski - supports this as getting drunk is reckless

But 

Richardson and Irwin - Suggests that the jury should decide whether D would have realised the risk if D had been sober. If they woul dnot have realised the risk when sober then D should'nt be guitly 

Involuntary intoxication - Can be a defence if D was not reckless 

Hardie - Was not reckless as the drug he took was supposed to calm him 

Voluntary intoxication : Can be a defence if the D was so intoxicated they could not form the mens rea. EG. Sheehan and Moore: Where they had not formed the means rea for murder of a tramp 

:It may not be a defence if D had the mens rea despite the intoxication. EG. AG for NI v Gallagher: Showed intent by buying a knife before getting drunk

Involuntary intoxication: Can be a defence if there is mean rea for the specific intent offence. EG. Hardie: Where the drug taken to calm D made D's behaviour unpredictable 

Kingston: It may not be a defence to specific intent crimes if the D had the mens rea when the crime occurred as in the abuse case Kingston