Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527

Facts

  • The defendant was given permission to stay at a friend's house.
  • While intoxicated, the defendant mistook a similar house for her friend's, attempted to enter, and was refused access by the actual owner.
  • The defendant broke a window to gain entry, believing it was her friend's property and that consent for damage would have been given.
  • She was charged under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for criminal damage.
  • At trial, she claimed she honestly believed her friend would have consented to the damage.
  • The lower court convicted her, ruling that a belief induced by voluntary intoxication could not suffice as a defense, relying on DPP v Majewski.
  • The Divisional Court overturned the conviction and found in favor of the defendant.

Issues

  1. Can a defendant rely on a statutory defense of honest belief in the owner's consent, under section 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, if the belief arose from voluntary intoxication?
  2. Does the policy exclusion of intoxication as a defense for crimes of basic intent, as established in DPP v Majewski, apply to statutory defenses requiring actual belief?

Decision

  • The Divisional Court held that the statutory defense under section 5(2)(a) permits an honest belief in consent, regardless of whether that belief arose due to voluntary intoxication.
  • It was determined that section 5(3) requires the court to consider the subjective existence of the belief, not its reasonableness or origin.
  • The court distinguished the facts from DPP v Majewski, emphasizing the primacy of statutory wording over general policy exclusions.

Legal Principles

  • Section 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides a defense if the defendant honestly believes the property owner would have consented, regardless of reasonableness.
  • Section 5(3) directs focus on the existence of a belief, not its intellectual soundness; a belief induced by intoxication is still legally valid.
  • Policy exclusions regarding voluntary intoxication from Majewski do not override specific statutory language when Parliament requires consideration of the actual, subjective belief.

Conclusion

Jaggard v Dickinson clarifies that where Parliament makes a defendant’s actual belief central to a statutory defense, an honest belief—however induced—must be considered. The defense under section 5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971 applies even if the belief was formed as a result of voluntary intoxication, with courts required to prioritize statutory language over general policy against intoxication-based defenses.

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