developed the Doctrine of , which essentially means that if D cannot benefit from a defence that was a result of his or her own .
He also stated that the intoxicated is less than the intoxicated actus reus.

argues that intoxication can be no .

suggests that there are with the current rules of law regarding :
1. The current rules on intoxication punish the itself.
2. The current rules on intoxication can only be applied to a limited of cases.

She also mentions that it is clear that the Courts wish to intoxication itself, and more than the current allow.

Finch and state that although the courts hold that a is not a reasonable or to make, this is not within the interest of the .

The law will never allow as a defence. This is where D drinks or takes drugs to conjure up the to commit a crime.
reasons: People would simply drink before they committed any crime, so that they had a mitigating their .

A-G of : A man wanted to his wife so drank some . The Court held that drunkenness will not be a to murder.

If D can form the of the offence, then the is not available.
It does not matter or why you got intoxicated.

per Lane L.J: "A intent is an intent."

If you the necessity of force, self-defence will not be allowed. A is not a reasonable and mistake to make. (, 1987)
(2005) - D cannot "rely on any attributable to intoxication that was ." This has been confirmed in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, .

crimes = an offence that is able to happen , e.g. assault,
Specific intent = only will , e.g. murder, GBH with

D is when he or she knowingly takes the drugs or alcohol.
Voluntary intoxication will not generally be a , but in some circumstances, it can act as a . These circumstances are, however, very .

(1987) - a as to the nature of the substance is entirely to D's plea.

(1984) is a case governing .
It states that prescription drugs should allow for a defence.

(1984) is a case governing intoxication.
On the conviction of D for his of a young boy whilst involuntarily , Lord argued that it is not about the of the conduct, but the fact that it is a ,

(1976) is a case governing intoxication.
It holds that if D is in his conduct of getting intoxicated, this shows doubt that he took a he was aware of.

(1982) confirmed Majewski.
Lord Diplock said that is an authority that " intoxication is no to a crime in which alone is enough to constitute the necessary "

D is where the consumption is not or where it is pursuant to doctor's orders or caused by a non-dangerous
D may have a defence if he or she is involuntarily intoxicated and does not form the correct for the offence.
If D has formed the correct mens rea for the despite being involuntarily intoxicated, D will have no .

states two problems caused by the Court of Appeal's attempt to reconcile with the intentional element of section 3 of the :
1. It is unclear how we should deal with the example raised in , concerning a 'D who intends to avoid contact, but realises that he may touch and is as to whether he will or not.'
The court concluded that a 'reckless touching will not do for .'
2. is a ; however, when dealing with s3, the problem is increasingly difficult.
The court wanted the of Majewski to apply to s3, even though their could not do so.