How intoxication bears on criminal liability — not a defence in itself, but a route to denying mens rea that the law tightly controls.
Whether a drunken defendant escapes liability turns on a series of classifications, and each step narrows or widens the door. This chapter begins with how the law distinguishes voluntary from involuntary intoxication, including spiked drinks, illegal drugs and prescribed medication, and the related division between dangerous and soporific substances. It then sets out the line between specific and basic intent offences — placing s.18, s.20, theft and criminal damage on the right side — before tracing the consequences: voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent but not basic intent, while involuntary intoxication can answer either, provided the mens rea was never formed. The chapter closes with how intoxication interacts with automatism, self-defence and the consent belief under s.5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act.
