This document summarizes several cases related to the defense of intoxication in criminal law. It establishes that voluntary intoxication generally cannot be used as a defense, as drunken intent is still considered intent. However, if a defendant was intoxicated to the point of lacking the necessary mental state or mens rea for the crime, intoxication could provide a defense for crimes requiring specific intent but not crimes of basic intent or manslaughter. Subsequent cases further clarified that mistakes due to intoxication cannot be relied on as a defense and that involuntary intoxication is also not a valid defense.

1. Intoxication

2. DPP v Beard 1920
Held: Where the
defendant has
the necessary
mens rea despite
his intoxicated
state, then he is
guilty of the
offence. The
intoxication does
not provide a
defence-drunken
intent is still
intent

3. A-G for Northern Ireland v
Gallagher (1963)
Held: D decided to kill his wife. He brought
a knife to do the killing and also a bottle of
whisky. He drank a large amount of whisky
before killing his wife. His conviction for
murder was upheld.

4. DPP v Majweski (1977)
Held: The crime was
one of basic intent
and therefore D’s
intoxication could
not be relied on as a
defence.

5. Kingston (1994)
Held: HL upheld his
conviction for indecent
assault, They held that if a
defendant had formed the
mens rea for an offence then
involuntary intoxication was
not a defence.

6. Richardson and Irwin 1999
Held: Clarke LJ said
that the question was
not what another
person would have
foreseen but what Ds
themselves would
have foreseen had
they been sober.

7. Lipman (1970)
Held: D’s intoxication could be used to if he
lacked the MR for murder as murder is a crime
of specific intent. D’s intoxication could not be
a defence to manslaughter as it is a crime of
basic intent. Therefore his conviction for
manslaughter was upheld.

8. Bailey 1983:
Held: Automatism, even
if self-induced could
provide a defence to a
crime of basic intent
crime (unless caused
by intoxication).

9. O’Grady (1987)
Held: D was convicted of manslaughter and
appealed against conviction. The CA dismissed
the appeal and said that a mistake arising
from voluntary intoxication could never be
relied on in putting forward a defence,
whatever the crime.

10. Hatton (2005)
Held: In self-defence, a
mistake induced by
drunkenness cannot be relied
on.

11. Jaggard v Dickinson
Held: Although D's
mistake was not a
reasonable one,
Parliament had provided
a defence based on
honest belief. Court had
to consider the
defendants actual state
of belief.