DPP v Majewski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal law in English law
Part of the common law series
Classes of crimes
Summary  · Indictable
Hybrid offence  · Regulatory offences
Lesser included offence
Elements of crimes
Actus reus  · Causation
Mens rea  · Intention (general)
Intention in English law  · Recklessness
Criminal negligence  · Corporate liability
Vicarious liability  · Strict liability
Omission  · Concurrence
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offences
Incitement  · Conspiracy
Accessory  · Attempt
Common purpose
Defences
Consent
Duress  · Necessity  · Self-defence
Provocation  · Diminished responsibility
Insanity
Crimes against the person
Common assault  · Battery
Actual bodily harm  · Grievous bodily harm
Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Murder  · Manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter  · Harassment
Public order and crimes against property
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Malicious Damage Act 1861
Public Order Act 1986
Public nuisance
Crimes of dishonesty
Theft Act 1968  · Theft  · Dishonesty
Robbery  · Burglary  · TWOC
Deception  · Deception offences
Blackmail  · Handling
Theft Act 1978  · Forgery
Fraud Act 2006  · Computer crime
Sexual crimes
Rape  · Kidnapping
Crimes against justice
Bribery  · Perjury
Obstruction of justice
See also Criminal Procedure
Criminal Defences
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts  · Evidence
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

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.

[edit] See also

BAILII: Official transcript

[edit] References

  1. ^ R v Beard [1920] AC 479
  2. ^ Majewski
  3. ^ Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
  4. ^ R v Caldwell [1983] AC 341
  5. ^ R v Morgan