INTOXICATION

Question 1

R v Allen

Answer 1

intoxication must be completely involuntary to actually be involuntary

Question 2

DPP v Majewski

Answer 2

shows D will always be reckless for choosing to intoxicate themselves.

Question 3

R v Lipman

Answer 3

Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to specific intent crimes if it negates D’s mens rea

Question 4

Gallagher

Answer 4

If D has mens rea despite the intoxication, they will still be
guilty of the specific intent crime

Question 5

R v Kingston

Answer 5

Involuntary intoxication can be a defence to specific intent
crimes if it negates D’s mens rea

If D has mens rea despite the intoxication though, they will still
be guilty of the specific intent crime (drunken intent is still intent)

Question 6

R v Hardie

Answer 6

D has not been reckless if they are involuntarily intoxicated,
so this can be a defence to basic intent crimes if the mens rea
has been negated.

If D still has the mens rea despite the intoxication though, they
will be guilty of the basic intent crime.