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.