## Facts

- The defendant, after consuming a large amount of alcohol and drugs, assaulted several police officers.
- He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
- The defendant argued that, due to his voluntary intoxication, he lacked the required mens rea for the assaults.
- The central issue was whether voluntary intoxication could serve as a legitimate defence by negating the necessary mental element for criminal liability in this context.

## Issues

1. Whether voluntary intoxication can negate criminal liability by preventing the formation of the required mens rea for an offence.
2. Whether self-induced intoxication provides a defence for crimes of basic intent as opposed to specific intent.
3. How to distinguish between offences of specific intent and offences of basic intent for the purpose of the intoxication defence.
4. The implications of substituting recklessness in becoming intoxicated as the relevant mens rea for crimes of basic intent.

## Decision

- The House of Lords upheld the defendant’s conviction.
- The court held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent, as recklessness in becoming intoxicated suffices for mens rea.
- Voluntary intoxication may negate mens rea only for offences of specific intent, not basic intent.
- The court did not provide a comprehensive definition of basic and specific intent but indicated that specific intent requires an ulterior purpose beyond the act, while basic intent involves recklessness or negligence.
- The distinction established in this case was significant for subsequent cases, though some ambiguities remain regarding the categorisation of offences.

## Legal Principles

- The ruling affirms that self-induced intoxication does not excuse criminal liability for crimes where recklessness satisfies the mens rea requirement.
- For crimes of specific intent—requiring an ulterior purpose—intoxication may provide a defence if it prevents the formation of the necessary intent.
- The case separated offences into those of basic intent (where recklessness suffices) and specific intent (where an act is intended for an ulterior purpose).
- Subsequent cases, such as R v Caldwell and R v Heard, have referenced this framework, though clarification and criticism persist.
- The approach departs from strict compliance with the principle of correspondence between actus reus and mens rea by substituting recklessness in intoxication for the usual mental element required.
- Automatism due to drugs not known to cause aggression (as in R v Hardie) may provide a defence, illustrating the limits of the Majewski ruling.
- The principle does not apply strictly to regulatory or strict liability offences, which usually do not require mens rea.

## Conclusion

DPP v Majewski firmly distinguished between basic and specific intent offences, establishing that voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent but may be relevant to specific intent offences. The decision has shaped the treatment of intoxication in English criminal law and remains central to debates regarding the relationship between culpability, intoxication, and criminal liability.

DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443