Intoxication

428C Intoxication in relation to offences of specific intent murder excp.
(1) Evidence that a person was intoxicated (whether by reason of self-induced intoxication or otherwise) at the time of the relevant conduct may be taken into account in determining whether the person had the intention to cause the specific result necessary for an offence of specific intent.
(2) However, such evidence cannot be taken into account if the person:
(a) had resolved before becoming intoxicated to do the relevant conduct, or
(b) became intoxicated in order to strengthen his or her resolve to do the relevant act.

Examples:
Larceny – specific intent to permanently deprive.
Murder – specific intent to murder/cause grievous bodily harm.
What about Murder by Reckless Indifference?
Grant [2002]:
Significant element of intent involved – first an awareness or foresight that death is a probable consequence, then a conscious decision to proceed regardless.
Murder, in all of its forms, should come within the operation of s 428C (specific intent) in that evidence of intoxication (self-induced or otherwise) is relevant.
Direction to the jury (Makisi [2004])
‘You will have to consider both their evidence carefully and work out, beyond reasonable doubt, whether the accused had the necessary capacity to act intentionally. If he lacked the capacity, through ingestion of alcohol, to act intentionally, then he didn’t.’.
Evidence of intoxication is important because it has the potential to raise a reasonable doubt whether the appellant had formed the intent.
Conclusion that accused lacked capacity to form intent would mean that he didn’t. However, if proved that he did not lack the capacity, this does not mean that he did.

DPP v Beard [1920] AC: clarified meaning of specific intent
Facts: When intoxicated, Beard suffocated a girl while raping her
Accused would be not guilty if intoxication rendered him incapable of forming specific intent for offence (e.g. intention to kill or cause grevious bodily harm)
“ In cases falling short of insanity a condition of drunkenness at the time of commiting an offence causing death can only, when it is available at all, have the effect of reducing the crime from murder to manslaughter”
Lipman [1970]: intoxication with drugs - lsd
Accused asphyxiated a girl by forcing a bed sheet down her throat while believing he was struggling with snakes
His state of intoxication rendered him incapable of forming specific intent for murder and was therefore convicted of manslaughter.
AG for NI v Gallagher [1963]: dutch courage
If someone forms intent to kill while sober and drinks to give himself Dutch courage, he cannot rely on self-induced intoxication to reduce murder to manslaughter by saying he was incapable offorming an intent to kill.
A psychopath cannot by drinking rely on self-induced defect of reason as a defence of insanity.
A psychopath who goes out intending to kill, knowing it is wrong, and does kill, cannot escape consequences of making himself drunk before doing it

O’Connor (1980) HCA: assault during resisting arrest
Took a hallucinogenic drug and drinking alcohol - could not recollect events.
Med evidence: combination could have rendered him unable to reason or to form intent to steal or wound.
Acquitted, charged with lower charge.
Majewski decision, although coming from House of Lords, is not completely persuasive because the decision was based purely on policy reasons, not on legal principle
Principles:
Blameworthy state of mind required for criminal liability to be incurred (except strict liability cases/culpable negligence); only voluntary conduct can constitute the AR
“Proposition [of Majewski’s case] as I understand it, is that in such a case a crime [of basic intent] may be committed without proof of any mental element, unless indeed the earlier act of the accused in intoxicating himself can be though of as supplying it”.

428D Intoxication in