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

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.

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