I'm a little confused by this defence.
So if a person is intoxicated, and makes the decision to sign a contract, they're legally considered not to be capable of making that decision.
And if a person is intoxicated, and makes the decision to give consent, they're legally considered not to be capable of making that decision.
But, if a person is intoxicated, and makes the decision to start a fight with someone, they are legally considered to be capable of making that decision.
And if a person is intoxicated, and makes the decision to drive a vehicle, they are legally considered to be capable of making that decision.
So, I'm confused. Are you legally capable of making decisions and being held responsible for them when you're intoxicated or not?