| A | B |
|---|
| R v Sheehan & Moore | tells us that a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent |
| R v Lipman | tells us that there is no distinction between drink and drugs |
| DPP v Majewski | tells us that voluntary intoxication is no defence to a basic intent crime |
| R v Allen | tells us that if D is mistaken about the strength of something, it will not be involuntary intoxication |
| R v Kingston | tells us that involuntary intoxication is not a defence if D already had the MR |
| Attorney Gen. for Northern Ireland v Gallagher | tells us that drinking for dutch courage will not be a defence |
| R v Stubbs | tells us that the intoxication must be "very extreme" |
| R v Hardie | tells us that if D takes a prescribed drug and it has an unexpected effect, this may be treated as involuntary intoxication |
