## Facts

- Lipman and his girlfriend voluntarily ingested LSD at her flat in the early hours.
- Under the influence of LSD, Lipman experienced hallucinations in which he believed he was descending through the earth and being attacked by snakes.
- During these hallucinations, Lipman violently assaulted his girlfriend and forced bed-sheets into her mouth, believing she was a snake.
- The girlfriend died as a result of asphyxiation and head injuries.
- Lipman was initially charged with murder, but the charge was reduced to manslaughter due to lack of evidence of intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm during the hallucination.

## Issues

1. Can voluntary intoxication negate criminal liability for manslaughter, a basic intent offence?
2. Does the automatism defence apply when loss of control arises from self-induced intoxication?
3. Is reckless consumption of LSD sufficient to establish mens rea for constructive manslaughter when the fatal act occurs during unconscious or involuntary conduct?

## Decision

- The trial judge ruled voluntary intoxication irrelevant for manslaughter and denied the automatism defence.
- Lipman was convicted of manslaughter.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, holding:
  - Manslaughter is a basic intent crime to which voluntary intoxication is not a defence.
  - Automatism does not apply if loss of control is self-induced; Lipman's condition resulted from his deliberate intake of LSD.
  - Reckless consumption of LSD was sufficient as mens rea for constructive manslaughter, given the obvious risk of dangerous and unpredictable behaviour.
- The court distinguished between basic and specific intent crimes, confirming intoxication is a defence only to specific intent offences.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary intoxication does not excuse basic intent crimes, including manslaughter; public policy aims to protect against dangers from self-induced intoxication.
- The defence of automatism requires involuntariness not caused by the defendant’s conscious actions; self-induced intoxication precludes this defence.
- For basic intent crimes, recklessness is satisfied where the defendant chooses to become intoxicated.
- Reckless self-intoxication can fulfill the fault element for constructive manslaughter if harm results from a dangerous act performed without conscious control.
- The ruling was later approved in DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, reaffirming the rule concerning intoxication and basic intent offences.

## Conclusion

The case confirms that voluntary intoxication and self-induced automatism cannot be relied upon as defences for basic intent crimes such as manslaughter; Lipman's reckless drug consumption fulfilled the required mental element and his conviction was upheld.


R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 (CA)