Facts
- The appellant, Heard, was heavily intoxicated when he exposed himself and rubbed his penis against a police officer's thigh.
- He was charged with sexual assault under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- Heard argued that his extreme drunkenness prevented him from forming the necessary mental state for the offence.
- The trial judge directed the jury that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent.
- Heard was convicted and appealed against the conviction.
Issues
- Whether sexual assault under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 constitutes a basic or specific intent offence.
- Whether voluntary intoxication can be relied upon as a defence in such cases.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, agreeing with the trial judge and jury.
- It confirmed that sexual assault under section 20 OAPA 1861 is a basic intent offence.
- The Court held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences.
- The Court emphasised the importance of protecting sexual assault victims, regardless of the offender’s intoxication.
Legal Principles
- Basic intent offences require proof that the defendant intentionally or recklessly performed the act, without the need to show an intent to achieve a specific further result.
- Specific intent offences require an additional element of intent beyond the act itself.
- Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences (citing DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443 and R v Leary (1978) 1 SCR 29).
- The focus for sexual assault is on the intentional or reckless touching, not on further specific intent or consequence.
Conclusion
The ruling in R v Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125 confirms that sexual assault is a basic intent offence under section 20 OAPA 1861, meaning voluntary intoxication does not operate as a defence. The decision reinforces principles of accountability in sexual offences, ensuring that intoxication will not excuse or mitigate criminal liability in such cases.