R v Woods (1982) 74 Cr App R 312
The appellant committed rape whilst intoxicated. He sought to rely on the defence of intoxication.
Held:
The crime of rape is one of basic intent and therefore defence of intoxication was not open to the appellant.
Griffiths LJ:
"If Parliament had meant to provide in future that a man whose lust was so inflamed by drink that he ravished a woman, should nevertheless be able to pray in aid his drunken state to avoid the consequences we would have expected them to have used the clearest words to express such a surprising result, which we believe would be utterly repugnant to the great majority of people. We are satisfied that Parliament had no such intention."
| 
