At issue is the case of O'Connor, which is discussed in the context of both Australian and British case law where intoxication has been presented as a viable argument for the defense on the grounds of diminished capacity to act voluntarily and intentionally. In discussing the validity of such a contention, this article reviews various situations in which alcohol may affect responsibility for actions and weighs the basis on which these may provide an acceptable denial of legal responsibility. Discussed in numerous legal contexts are impairment of muscular control, failures of perceptions, mistakes and misinterpretations, hallucinations and delusions, dissociation and disorientation, and amnesia and unconsciousness. Detailed analysis is then devoted to the High Court's formulation of the O'Connor ruling, which affirmed the principle that evidence of intoxication can be used to defeat the imputation of criminal guilt, and which has subsequently drawn much commonsense skepticism and public incredulity. The critique presented here contends that O'Connor provides very little enlightenment on the question of how intoxication affected the defendant's liability. It is concluded that this ruling has created a need to formulate a set of coherent principles linking intoxication and exculpation, although legislation of a specific defense for the intoxicated defendant is not advised.