Say Person A is very drunk and tried to attacked Person B, but Person B dodged, and Person C got hit. Person C had a pre-existing medical condition and died as a result of Person A's action.
If the defendant uses the defense of intoxication and it is believed that the defendant lacks the required mens rea, is the doctrine of transferred malice is still relevant? Because the doctrine of transferred malice only applies when the defendant has the required mens rea? So when I am writing my analysis I need not mention the doctrine of transferred malice?
And if the defendant uses the defense of intoxication, then he is more likely to be convicted of manslaughter, a basic intent offence in this situation right? As a murder is a specific intent offence and after the case of DPP v Beard (1920) it is unlikely that the defendant will be convicted of murder?
I just want to make sure my analysis is correct.