voluntary

• intoxication

  inability to form mr due to alcohol, drugs or other substances

  judge decides if there if evidence (groark)

  mistake induced by intoxication is no defence (o'grady)
• voluntary intents

  specific - d has defence (Lipman) as long as he hasn't formed mr (Gallagher)

  basic - no defence, becoming intoxicated is reckless so enough for mr (majewski)
• voluntary intoxication


  d has chosen to take drugs/alcohol
• vi point 1

  defence for specific intent offences (murder) as long as intoxication stopped d from performing mr

  drugged intent is still intent (Sheehan and more)

  drank for 'dutch courage' to kill means there was intent (Gallagher)
• vi point 2


  if d charged with a specific intent, consider fallback offence, intoxication is a partial defence

  took lsd, attacked his gf, though she was a snake (Lipman)
• vi point 3

  no defence to basic intent offence

  voluntarily becoming intoxicated is reckless in itself, enough for mr (dpp v majewski)

  if d wouldn't have realised the risk even if sober (richardson and Irwin)