Intoxication

Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication by alcohol

Voluntary intoxication on specific intent offences
The defence of intoxication is available for specific intent offences,  although only as a partial defence. In DPP  v Beard,  it was held that a defendant charge with a specific crime can prove that he/she is so intoxicated as to for the necessary mens reason intent for the crime, he/she will be acquitted  of that crime but will be convicted of a basic intent offence.

Voluntary intoxication on basic intent offences
Generally,  as in DPP v Majewski,  the defence of intoxication for basic intent offence will be rejected,  however,  R v Richardson and Irving held that the Crown must prove that the defendant must foreseen the risk of the harm he committed had he or she had not been intoxicated in order for the defence to be rejected.  If not,  then the defendant can raise the defence of intoxication.


Voluntary intoxication by illegal drugs
R v Lipman held that no specific intent is required to prove manslaughter in response to intoxication.  Self induced intoxication is no defence and if the act will cause harm to the victim,  manslaughter is inevitable.

For sedative,  R v Hardie held that it must be considered whether the defendant's act is reckless or not.

Involuntary intoxication
If Involuntary intoxication negates the Mens Rea of the offence,  it will be a full defence for any type on offence (Basic intent or Specific intent crimes).  However,  R v Kingston held that intoxicated intent is still intent and the fact that the intoxication was Involuntary doesn't make any difference.