DPP v Majewski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DPP v. Majewski [1976] UKHL 2, [1977] AC 443 is an English criminal law case, dealing with intoxication defences and intention.
Contents |
[edit] Facts
The defendant, Robert Stefan Majewski, committed a series of assaults (occasioning actual bodily harm while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. He attacked the landlord and several customers at a public house; he subsequently attacked the police officer who drove him to the police station following his arrest, and a police inspector at the station.
He tried to rely on his intoxication as a "defence" to the charges.
[edit] Decision (House of Lords)
Dismissing his appeal, it was held that he could not rely on intoxication, as it is no defence.
They did, however, recognise that certain offences require a mens rea element termed specific intent (cf. basic intent). The requisite mens rea can be disproved if the defendant can prove that he was so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming such an intent.
There is no definite authority or fixed rule on what constitutes a specific intent offence. It is established that murder is[1] but manslaughter is not[2]; there are also specific intent elements in wounding with intent[3]. As a general rule, it can be said that, where a recklessness will suffice as mens rea, the crime is one of basic intent[4]. An alternative model is that specific intent is when the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus, i.e. the defendant contemplates consequences beyond their physical actions[5].
At any rate, it was held that assault occasioning ABH was a crime of basic intent, and hence even when too drunk too form a specific intent, one could still form a basic intent.
It should be noted that, even where intoxication can disprove mens rea, this is not the same as a defence (a justification or excuse for committing the offence); rather it is a denial that all the necessary elements to constitute an offence - namely actus reus and simultaneous mens rea - were present.