intoxication

• burden of proof on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D formed necessary mens rea
• covered by drinks, drugs or other substances
• guilty depending on:

  • whether intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
  • whether offence D is charged with is one of basic or specific intent
• specific intent crimes = require intention, s18, murder, theft
• basic intent crimes = requires defendant to act recklessly or intentionally, assault, battery
• VI = D has chosen to take intoxicating substance
• VI - SI offence - if D is so intoxicated he did not form the mens rea so he is not guilty (Sheehan and Moore)
• VI - drunken intent is still intent (AG Northern Ireland v Gallagher)
• VI - BI - intoxication is not a defence, D has been reckless
• VI - getting drunk is a 'reckless course of conduct' (DPP v Majewski)
• VI - fact of being intoxicated does not automatically make D guilty (Richardson and Irwin)
• involuntary intoxication = D did not know he was taking a substance
• II - where D takes prescription drugs, can be a defence unless taken recklessly (Bailey)
• II - if D has the necessary mens rea when committing offence, they will be found guilty (Kingston)
• II - if intoxicated by duress then involuntary
• II - if D takes a sedative drug and it has opposite effects, they can rely on defence (Hardie)