⇒ Intoxication can be relevant in a criminal case in three ways:

• 1) The defendant may for some crimes seek to rely on his intoxication as evidence he lacked mens rea.
• 2) The prosecution may in some crimes seek to rely on the defendant’s intoxication to establish the defendant’s mens rea.
• 3) There are certain crimes that specifically refer to being intoxicated. For example, it is an offence to drive a vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs (Road Traffic Act 1988, s4(2)).

⇒ Voluntary intoxication is self-induced intoxication. Involuntary intoxication is intoxication caused by by someone or something else (e.g. where your drink is spiked).

⇒ Alcohol and illegal drugs:

• Where someone voluntarily takes alcohol or illegal drugs - even if that person thinks the alcohol/drugs will have little effect on them - they are said to be voluntarily intoxicated. See, for example, the case of R v Allen [1988].
• If the defendant thought he was drinking a non alcoholic drink but it had been spiked then that would be involuntarily intoxication.
• Where someone is addicted to drugs/alcohol they are said to be voluntarily intoxicated.

⇒ Legal Substances:

• The defendant is voluntarily intoxicated if he/she is aware of the effects of taking the legal substance.
• The defendant is voluntarily intoxicated if prescribed medicine is not taken how it should be. See the case of R v Hardie [1985].

⇒ Where the defendant has voluntarily put themselves in the position of being intoxicated to the extent that they are not capable of forming the mental element of the crime the law is less forgiving. The law draws a distinction between crimes of basic intent and crimes of specific intent.

⇒ The House of Lords case of DPP v Majewski [1977] highlighted that there was a distinction to be made between basic and specific intent, but failed to clarify the specific parameters of both and their exact meaning. However, they are widely believed to mean the following:

• Specific intent: offences of specific intent are those which have intention as their mens rea. For example, murder.
• Basic intent: crimes of basic intent are those for which the mens rea element can be satisfied by recklessness. For example, assault.

⇒ Great uncertainty surrounds crime which contain elements of intent and elements of recklessness. For example, rape, where the mens rea is an intent to engage in sexual intercourse with negligence as to whether the victim consented. See the case of R v Heard [2007].

⇒ If the defendant has mens rea, whether voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated, he/she is guilty of the offence: "a drunken intent is nevertheless still an intent"

⇒ If the defendant is involuntarily intoxicated and has NO mens rea then he/she should be acquitted i.e. it is a complete defence

⇒ If the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated and has NO mens rea then he/she will be seen to have acted recklessly (and, therefore, will be guilty of basic intent crimes), but will be acquitted of any offence needing intention (i.e. specific intent crimes, such as murder. Nevertheless, the defendant in such a case will be charged with the lesser offence of murder).

• Thus, voluntary intoxication is a partial defence.