## 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.


R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152