House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837604000406 |
| Published date | 01 October 1976 |
| Date | 01 October 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House
of
Lords
Comments
on
Cases
LIMITS OF SELF-INTOXICATION AS A
DEFENCE
D.P.P. v.
Majewski
The
House
of
Lords has
now
upheld
the
opinion
of
the
Court
of
Appeal
that
the
conviction
of
the
accused in Majewski's case
must
be
upheld:
see
1976,
3
All
E.R.
142.
It
will be recalled
that
the
accused
attacked
and
injured
the
landlord
and
two
other
persons
in
a
public
house. When
the
police arrived, he assaulted an
officer
and
later
at
the
police
station
he
assaulted
two
other
officers. When charged
with
assault occasioning
actual
bodily
harm
and
assault
upon
apolice
constable
in
the
execution
of
his
duty,
he pleaded
that
he
had
not
the
necessary mens rea
to
support
these charges. His evidence was
to
the
effect
that
he
had
taken
a
considerable
quantity
of
drugs,
with
the
result
that,
when
the
assaults were
committed,
he was acting
under
a
combination
of
drugs
and
alcohol to such an
extent
that
he did
not
know
what
he
was
doing
and
had
no
recollection
of
the
incidents
that
had
occurred.'
The
trial
judge
directed
the
jury
that
the
accused's
ingestion
of
drink
or
drugs was
quite
irrelevant if
the
state
he was
in was self-induced.
Although
there
seems
to
have
been
ample
evidence
that
the
accused
did
in fact
know
what
he was
doing
(see, e.g. per Lord Salmon,
at
p.155g),
the
Crown
did
not
seek
to
uphold
the
conviction
on
the
basis
of
the
proviso, so
that
the
net
issue
before
the. House
of
Lords was (as it
had
been
before
the
Court
of
Appeal)
whether
the
trial
judge's
direction
as
to
the
limit
of
self-induced
intoxication
as a defence
t-o
the
charges in
question
was
correct.
The
precise
point
of
law certified
to
be
of
general
public
importance
was
"whether
a
defendant
may
properly
be
convicted
of
assault
notwithstanding
that,
by
reason
of
his self-induced in-
toxication,
he
did
not
intend
to
do
the
act
alleged
to
constitute
the
assault."
In
answer
to
this
question,
the
House
of
Lords has
declared
that,
unless
the
offence
is
one
which
requires
proof
of
a
"specific,
or
ulterior,
intent",
it is
no
defence
to
acriminal charge
that,
by
reason
of
self-induced
intoxication,
the
accused
did
not
intend
to do
the
alleged act.
In
the
opinion
of
the
House, s.S
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act,
1967 is irrelevant, for
that
section
deals
only
His
condition
was described as non-insane
automation
resulting
from
pathological
intoxication.
247
To continue reading
Request your trial