R v Majewski (Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski)

Self-induced intoxication by drink or drugs is no defence to an offence of basic intent. Voluntarily becoming intoxicated is itself reckless conduct and supplies the necessary culpability where recklessness suffices.

Intoxication may, however, be considered when the prosecution must prove a specific intent or purposive element. It may prevent conviction of that offence, although liability for a lesser offence of basic intent may remain. For assault, unlawful wounding and manslaughter, a jury may therefore disregard voluntarily induced intoxication as a defence.

The appellant was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court of assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and assaults on police constables. He claimed that voluntarily consumed alcohol, amphetamines and barbiturates had left him unaware of his actions. The judge directed the jury that self-induced intoxication was irrelevant because the offences required no specific intent.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed his appeal in [1975] 3 W.L.R. 401 and certified whether a defendant could be convicted of assault despite lacking an intention to perform the act because of self-induced intoxication. The House considered the common-law distinction between offences of basic and specific intent and the effect of section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The certified question was answered affirmatively. The trial judge had correctly directed the jury that voluntarily induced intoxication afforded no defence to the assault charges.

2. Per Lord Elwyn-Jones LC, with whom Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Kilbrandon expressly agreed, self-induced intoxication is irrelevant to an offence of basic intent. A person who knowingly and willingly takes drink or drugs and thereby disables the restraints of reason acts recklessly. That antecedent recklessness supplies sufficient mens rea where the offence may be committed recklessly.

3. Lord Simon explained that a crime of basic intent has a mens rea corresponding to its prohibited act and consequence. A crime of specific intent requires an additional purposive element. Self-induced intoxication may be evidence that the additional element did not exist, but cannot be treated as its equivalent. Lord Salmon, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Russell reached the same operative distinction, although Lord Salmon acknowledged that it was not dictated by strict logic.

4. Evidence of intoxication remains relevant where a specific intent is an essential element. If intoxication prevents proof of that intent, the accused cannot be convicted of the specific-intent offence, although a lesser basic-intent offence may remain. The House explained Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard [1920] A.C. 479 consistently with that distinction.

5. Assault requires intention or recklessness concerning the immediate and unlawful application or apprehension of force. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm does not additionally require an intention to cause the resulting bodily harm. An act that is purely accidental remains outside criminal assault.

6. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 regulates proof of intention and foresight from relevant evidence. It did not alter the substantive common-law rule that self-induced intoxication is irrelevant to offences of basic intent.

7. Where death or physical injury results without lawful justification, a jury may disregard knowingly and willingly consumed drink or drugs as a defence to manslaughter, common assault, unlawful wounding under section 20, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

1. House of Lords: The appeal was dismissed unanimously and the certified question was answered affirmatively.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed in [1975] 3 W.L.R. 401. Leave to appeal was granted on a certified point of law of general public importance.
3. Chelmsford Crown Court: The appellant was convicted of three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty.