DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443 (HL)

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal