Criminal Law – Defences – intoxication
Today’s lecture was part of a series of lectures regarding defences available under the Criminal Offences Act (I think… about the act that is. 
) . Other available defences are mistake of fact, duress, necessity, insanity and automatism.
Intoxication is not a defence in its mere being, being found intoxicated can amount to an offence (eg. driving under the effect of alcohol), it might just as well be an evidence of the lack of mens rea required for an offence.
There are two forms of intoxication; involuntary intoxication (where D is unaware that he has consumed an intoxicant) and voluntary intoxication (where D knowingly consumed an intoxicant, even if he is unaware of its level).
Involuntary intoxication is usually a defence, while voluntary intoxication is only a defence for offences that require specific intent (as opposed to offences requiring basic intent). The distinction between specific and basic intent is hard to understand and seems at many instances arbitrary due to the desire of the court to not let ‘drinkers’ get away with their irresponsible actions. It is claimed that more serious offences require specific intent, while less serious offences require only basic intent, but is manslaughter a ‘less-serious-offence’?!!
Relevant cases: DPP v Beard, DPP v Majewski, R v Lipman, R v O’Grady, R v Fotheringham, R v Richardson and Irwin, AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.
