## Facts

- Robert Majewski was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm against police officers and assaulting a pub owner.
- The offences occurred during a violent incident following Majewski’s use of significant quantities of drugs and alcohol.
- Majewski argued that his intoxication prevented him from forming the required intent for the offences charged.
- The House of Lords was required to determine whether voluntary intoxication could displace the mental state required for these offences.

## Issues

1. Whether voluntary intoxication can negate the mental element for crimes requiring only basic intent.
2. Whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between crimes of basic intent and specific intent.
3. Whether recklessness in becoming intoxicated provides the necessary mens rea for basic intent offences.

## Decision

- The House of Lords divided crimes into those of basic intent and specific intent.
- It was held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent, as becoming intoxicated is itself reckless conduct.
- For crimes requiring specific intent, voluntary intoxication may in rare cases negate the necessary mental element.
- The Lords reasoned that self-induced intoxication meets the recklessness required for basic intent crimes and cannot excuse criminal actions committed in that state.
- The rule was justified by practical considerations about public safety and the prevention of abuse of the intoxication defence.

## Legal Principles

- Crimes of basic intent require proof of recklessness or intent in relation to the act, and voluntary intoxication cannot provide a defence.
- Crimes of specific intent require proof of intent towards a further consequence, and voluntary intoxication may sometimes negate this intent.
- Becoming voluntarily intoxicated amounts to recklessness, satisfying the mens rea for basic intent crimes.
- The division between basic and specific intent has been criticized for being difficult to apply but remains central to criminal law.
- Practical considerations about public order and responsibility for violent acts underpin the rejection of voluntary intoxication as a defence for basic intent offences.

## Conclusion

DPP v Majewski provides the leading authority that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent, equating self-induced intoxication with recklessness; despite ongoing criticisms, its distinction between basic and specific intent offences remains fundamental to criminal law and public safety policy.


DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443 (HL)