R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392

Facts

  • Richardson and Irwin, university students, had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol.
  • While intoxicated, they lifted a friend over a balcony, leading to the friend falling and suffering serious injuries.
  • The trial judge did not instruct the jury to consider how the defendants’ voluntary intoxication might have impaired their capacity to perceive risk.
  • The defendants appealed, arguing inadequate direction regarding their state of mind and recklessness considering their intoxication.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury to consider if the defendants’ voluntary intoxication impaired their ability to recognize risk.
  2. Whether recklessness should be assessed according to the defendants’ awareness while intoxicated or what they would have foreseen if sober.
  3. How voluntary versus involuntary intoxication affects the assessment of mens rea and criminal liability.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was wrong not to instruct the jury to consider what the defendants would have appreciated if sober.
  • It was determined that in cases of voluntary intoxication, recklessness must be assessed based on what the defendant would have perceived had they not been intoxicated.
  • The Court reaffirmed that a subjective test for recklessness applies, focusing on the defendant’s likely sober mental state.
  • The decision clarified that this analysis pertains specifically to voluntary, not involuntary, intoxication.

Legal Principles

  • When intoxication is voluntary, recklessness is assessed by the risk a defendant would have recognized if sober.
  • The appropriate subjective test (Cunningham test) considers what the defendant would have foreseen if not intoxicated.
  • Voluntary intoxication does not itself constitute or negate mens rea but may affect a defendant’s capacity to perceive risk.
  • There is a critical distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, with this principle applying only to voluntary cases.
  • The approach maintains accountability for actions committed while intoxicated by focusing on the subjective understanding of risk.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392 held that, for voluntary intoxication, recklessness should be judged by the risk the defendant would have foreseen if sober, reaffirming the subjective test for mens rea and distinguishing voluntary from involuntary intoxication in criminal law.

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