DPP v Majewski, United Kingdom House of Lords, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

LORD CHANCELLOR
LORD ASKED
LORD DIPLOCK
LORD SIMON
LORD DENNING
LORD PARKER
LORD EDMOND
LORD BIRKENHEAD
LORD GODDARD
LORD JUSTICE LAWTON
LORD SALMON
LORD HAILSHAM
LORD KILMUIR
LORD WIDGERY
LORD KILBRANDON
LORD EDMUND
LORD RUSSELL
LORD HELD
LORD TOLD

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

DPP v. Majewski

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried at The Crown Court in The City for three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of assault on police officers acting in the execution of their duty. The incidents arose from a disturbance in a public house during which the Appellant, having voluntarily consumed a substantial quantity of non-prescribed drugs and alcohol, struck the landlord, a customer and several police officers, and later assaulted an inspector while in custody. A jury convicted him on six counts. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal but certified a point of law of general public importance. This decision comes on further appeal to the House of Lords.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a defendant may properly be convicted of assault even though, by reason of self-induced intoxication, he lacked the intention to commit the act alleged to constitute the assault.
Whether section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 abrogates or qualifies the common-law rule on intoxication and criminal responsibility.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

No person is criminally liable (other than for strict-liability offences) without a mens rea.
An individual who, due to intoxication, acts in a state of automatism lacks any guilty mind and therefore cannot be convicted, irrespective of whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent.
To treat self-induced automatism differently from automatism caused by external factors is illogical, unethical and contrary to fundamental principles of criminal law.
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 requires the jury to consider “all the evidence,” including the effect of intoxication; the trial judge’s direction that intoxication was irrelevant constituted a misdirection.

Respondent's Arguments

Long-standing common law draws a distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent; self-induced intoxication is a defence only to the former.
Assault is a crime of basic intent; recklessness suffices for its mental element, and voluntary intoxication itself supplies that recklessness.
The substantive rule that intoxication is irrelevant to crimes of basic intent has not been altered by section 8 of the 1967 Act, which addresses evidential, not substantive, law.
Public policy requires maintenance of this rule to protect society from violent conduct by intoxicated persons.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Tolson (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 168	Definition and variability of mens rea	Quoted to show that each offence has its own mental element; intoxication does not universally negate liability.
R v Morgan [1975] 2 W.L.R. 913	Explanation of “basic intent” crimes	Used to illustrate that assault’s mental element mirrors the actus reus.
R v Venna [1975] 3 W.L.R. 737	Recklessness suffices for assault	Cited to support treating voluntary intoxication as evidence of recklessness.
DPP v Beard [1920] A.C. 479	Voluntary intoxication only relevant where specific intent is essential	Accepted as the leading authority establishing the specific/basic intent divide.
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] A.C. 349	General principle that drunkenness is no defence	Relied on to reaffirm the common-law rule.
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] A.C. 386	Definition of automatism; effect of intoxication	Approved the position that intoxication may reduce but not eliminate liability.
R v Lipman [1970] 1 Q.B. 152	Drug-induced hallucination and manslaughter	Used as an example of limiting intoxication to partial, not total, exculpation.
R v George (1960) 128 C.C.C. 289	Distinction between general and specific intent	Quoted for analytical clarity on “specific intent.”
R v Doherty 16 Cox C.C. 306	Intoxication may reduce murder to manslaughter	Cited historically to trace judicial development.
R v Meade [1909] 2 Cr. App. R. 54	Erroneous departure from common-law rule	Mentioned as disapproved by later authority.
Moore 3 C. & K. 319	Drunkenness and attempted suicide	Illustrates that specific intent must still be proved.
DPP v Smith [1961] A.C. 290	Presumption of intent; legislative response	Explained why section 8 of the 1967 Act was enacted.
Steane [1947] K.B. 997	Requirement to consider the whole evidence	Distinguished; section 8 does not change substantive law on intoxication.
Bolton v Crawley [1972] Crim. L.R. 222	Intoxication irrelevant to assault occasioning actual bodily harm	Guided the trial judge’s original direction.
R v Quick & Paddison (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 722	Automatism caused by external factors	Contrasted with self-induced intoxication.
Charlson [1955] 1 All E.R. 859	Medical conditions and automatism	Used to differentiate involuntary states from voluntary intoxication.
R v King (1961) 34 C.R. 264	Effect of anaesthetic on voluntariness	Compared to intoxication to show differing legal treatment.
R v Ryan (1967) A.L.R. 577	Voluntariness as prerequisite for liability	Cited by academics; court declined to follow.
Keogh [1964] V.R. 400	Automatism induced by drunkenness	Contrary Commonwealth view noted but not adopted.
Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 Q.B. 277	Voluntary act requirement even for absolute offences	Referenced to highlight breadth of automatism defence.
Haywood [1971] V.R. 755	Automatism and manslaughter by negligence	Used in academic criticism; not followed by the House.
Pagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 Q.B. 439	Definition of assault	Supports requirement of intention or recklessness in assault.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House of Lords traced the historical development of the common law, noting that voluntary intoxication was traditionally no excuse and, since the nineteenth century, has been regarded as relevant only when a specific intent is an element of the offence. Assault is a crime of basic intent; its mens rea is satisfied by intention to apply unlawful force or by recklessness. By voluntarily consuming intoxicants, the Appellant engaged in conduct inherently reckless as to the risk of violent behaviour. That recklessness fulfils the mental element required for assault.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s submission that automatism induced by self-intoxication should be treated like automatism arising from external or pathological causes. Allowing such a defence would, in the Court’s view, undermine public safety and contradict long-standing precedent. Academic and some Commonwealth criticism was acknowledged but not adopted.

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was held to govern evidential rules, not to alter substantive criminal law. Because the substantive rule renders intoxication irrelevant in crimes of basic intent, evidence of it was properly withheld from the jury’s consideration on the issue of liability.

Accordingly, the trial judge’s direction that intoxication afforded no defence to the assault charges was correct, and there was no misdirection.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The certified question was answered in the affirmative; the appeal was DISMISSED.

Implications: The decision definitively affirms that self-induced intoxication, however extreme, is not a defence to offences of basic intent such as assault, unlawful wounding, or manslaughter by an unlawful act. Trial judges should direct juries that voluntary drink or drugs are irrelevant to liability for such offences. The ruling maintains the specific/basic intent distinction and leaves any broader reform of the law of intoxication to Parliament.