intoxication

when will intoxication work as a defense

when it negates mens rea

allen

if D knows they are taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of its strength this will be treated as voluntary: involuntary intoxication must be completely involuntary

hardie

if the defendant knows they are taking an intoxicating substance but is unaware of its effects this will be treated as involuntary

what Mens rea do specific intent crimes need

intention

what Mens rea do basic intent crimes need

only need recklessness

Dpp v Majewski

voluntary intoxication can never be a defence to basic intent crimes as they were reckless in becoming intoxicated and so will have the required mens rea

Lipman

D will not be convicted of a specific intent crime if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea

Gallagher

If the defendant has the required mens rea of the specific intent offence then he will be guilty (drunken intent is still intent)

kingston

if the involuntary ntoxication negates the mens rea then the defendant will not be guilty of the specific intent crime however if they have the mens rea of the specific intent crime he will be guilty

hardie (invol)

when involuntarily intoxicated the defendant was not reckless in becoming intoxicated ans so if they dont have the actual mens rea they will be not guilty

r v ogrady

you cannot make an intoxicated mistake, you will still be guilty