## Facts

- Richardson and Irwin, university students, had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol.
- While intoxicated, they lifted a friend over a balcony, leading to the friend falling and suffering serious injuries.
- The trial judge did not instruct the jury to consider how the defendants’ voluntary intoxication might have impaired their capacity to perceive risk.
- The defendants appealed, arguing inadequate direction regarding their state of mind and recklessness considering their intoxication.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury to consider if the defendants’ voluntary intoxication impaired their ability to recognize risk.
2. Whether recklessness should be assessed according to the defendants’ awareness while intoxicated or what they would have foreseen if sober.
3. How voluntary versus involuntary intoxication affects the assessment of mens rea and criminal liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was wrong not to instruct the jury to consider what the defendants would have appreciated if sober.
- It was determined that in cases of voluntary intoxication, recklessness must be assessed based on what the defendant would have perceived had they not been intoxicated.
- The Court reaffirmed that a subjective test for recklessness applies, focusing on the defendant’s likely sober mental state.
- The decision clarified that this analysis pertains specifically to voluntary, not involuntary, intoxication.

## Legal Principles

- When intoxication is voluntary, recklessness is assessed by the risk a defendant would have recognized if sober.
- The appropriate subjective test (Cunningham test) considers what the defendant would have foreseen if not intoxicated.
- Voluntary intoxication does not itself constitute or negate mens rea but may affect a defendant’s capacity to perceive risk.
- There is a critical distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, with this principle applying only to voluntary cases.
- The approach maintains accountability for actions committed while intoxicated by focusing on the subjective understanding of risk.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392 held that, for voluntary intoxication, recklessness should be judged by the risk the defendant would have foreseen if sober, reaffirming the subjective test for mens rea and distinguishing voluntary from involuntary intoxication in criminal law.
