R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152

Facts

• Robert Lipman was convicted of manslaughter after killing his friend during a hallucinatory episode induced by voluntary consumption of LSD.
• Lipman, suffering hallucinations, believed he was fighting a serpent and inflicted fatal injuries, including two blows to the head and death by asphyxia.
• He was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter and appealed the conviction.
• The main issue on appeal concerned whether voluntary intoxication by drugs could serve as a defence, particularly given the defendant's lack of intent while hallucinating.
• The defence argued that Lipman's intoxicated state negated the intent necessary for manslaughter.

Issues

1. Whether voluntary intoxication by drugs can negate the mental element required for manslaughter.
2. Whether manslaughter is a crime of basic or specific intent for the purpose of the intoxication defence.
3. Whether self-induced intoxication can excuse criminal liability for crimes which do not require specific intent.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal dismissed Lipman’s appeal and upheld the conviction for manslaughter.
• The court held that voluntary intoxication by drugs is not a defence to crimes of basic intent, such as manslaughter.
• The effects of drugs were equated with alcohol; self-induced intoxication does not provide a defence for basic intent crimes.
• The decision relied on authority from R v Church, confirming that for manslaughter, it is sufficient to prove the defendant performed an unlawful act carrying a risk of harm as recognized by a reasonable person.
• Recklessness in becoming intoxicated is enough to supply the required mens rea for manslaughter.

Legal Principles

• The distinction between specific intent and basic intent crimes determines the availability of the intoxication defence.
• For specific intent crimes, self-induced intoxication may provide a defence if it prevents the formation of the required intent.
• For basic intent crimes, self-induced intoxication is not a defence; recklessness in becoming intoxicated fulfills the required fault element.
• The court reaffirmed that unlawful act manslaughter is an offence of basic intent, where the act must be recognized as dangerous by a reasonable person.
• The voluntary consumption of intoxicants, knowing the possible risks, constitutes recklessness sufficient for basic intent crimes.

Conclusion

R v Lipman establishes that voluntary intoxication cannot serve as a defence to manslaughter, as the recklessness involved in becoming intoxicated supplies the culpable mental element for crimes of basic intent; those who choose to intoxicate themselves will be held responsible for the consequences.