Why can evidence of voluntary intoxication be used in specific intent offences only?Watch
More law resources on TSR
In cases like DPP v Beard and R v Sheehan and Moore it was suggested that a person who becomes voluntarily intoxicated essentially cannot be said to have formed the necessary intent required for a specific intent crime as they are often (however not in all instances) not mentally in the right state of mind to be said to have directly intended the outcome - i.e. their culpability level is lower, it is often taken into account whether they would have committed the offence whilst sober. However, for basic intent crimes, of course recklessness suffices as the necessary intention and it has been noted in cases such as Majewski that voluntary intoxication is a reckless course of conduct, thus voluntary intoxication will not mitigate for basic intent offences.