Intoxication

R v Heard

merely drunk: D may do something they wouldn't do sober, but they are still aware they are doing it.

R v Sheehan and Moore

drunken intent is still intent

R v Coley

if a defendant commits a specific intent crime and could form the mens rea, then the defence of intoxication is unavailable

R v Lipman

voluntary intoxication + specific intent crime = conviction of lesser basic intent crime if D couldn't form MR (e.g murder to UAM)

DPP v Majewski

voluntary intoxication + basic intent crime = defence not available as becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct

R v Kingston

a drunken intent is still an intent. No defence for involuntary intoxication where the mens rea for the crime is present.

R v Hardie

unknown side effects to medication and D does not have MR = defence (must have no recollection)

R v Allen

when D does not know the strength of drugs/alcohol = still voluntary intoxication

Att-Gen Ref for NI v Gallagher

MR formed before intoxication, 'dutch courage' is not a defence. A drunken intent is still intent.