Intoxication

Intoxication

Voluntary Intoxication

Majewski: Voluntary intoxication will be a defence to specific intent crimes as the defendant was so intoxicated he could not form the mens rea.

Voluntary Intoxication and Specific Intent: Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant becomes so intoxicated of their own free will. Specific intent crimes are ones that require intention only as a form of mens rea. 

Lipman: Held the offence was reduced to manslaughter, the basic intent alternative as the defendant was so intoxicated they couldn't form the mens rea. 

The courts always reduce specific intent crimes to their basic intent alternative. 

Majewski: Voluntary intoxication is not a defence for basic intent crimes as the defendant was reckless in becoming intoxicated, recklessness is enough to satisfy the mens rea for the offence. 

Richardson v Irwin: Held would the defendant foresee the risk of the consequences of his actions if he had been sober. 

Involuntary Intoxication

Spiking

The defendant is unaware that he has taken an intoxicating substance. Spiking is where the defendant has had a substance put into his drink.

Kingston: Held the defendant could not claim involuntary intoxication as intoxicated intent is still intent in law. 

Pharmaceutical

The defendant is unaware that he has taken an intoxicating substance.

Hardy: Held the defendant could have a defence of involuntary intoxication if the defendant wasn't reckless in taking the drug and was unaware of the likely effect.