DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443

Majewski consumed a large quantity of alcohol and drugs over a prolonged period. He then became violent in a public house, assaulted customers and police officers, and caused injuries. At trial he claimed to have little recollection of the events and argued that his intoxication prevented him from forming the mental element for the assaults. The judge directed the jury that self-induced intoxication was no defence to offences of basic intent. Majewski was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assaults on police officers. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal but certified whether the common-law rule excluding voluntary intoxication was compatible with the requirement that the prosecution prove mens rea.

May a defendant rely on voluntary intoxication to deny the mens rea of a basic-intent offence, and how is that rule reconciled with the principle of fault?

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and upheld the basic-intent rule. Evidence of voluntary intoxication may be considered when deciding whether a defendant formed a specific intent, but it does not ordinarily provide a defence to an offence of basic intent. The defendant's reckless decision to become intoxicated supplies sufficient culpability for the rule's purposes where the offence can be committed recklessly. The prosecution must still prove the actus reus and the mental element as the law defines it; intoxication is not treated as an independent defence. The distinction has been criticised, but remains part of English criminal law. Involuntary intoxication is treated differently, although R v Kingston confirms that it does not excuse a defendant who actually formed the required intent.

Voluntary intoxication can prevent proof of the additional purpose required for a specific-intent offence, but it is not generally available to negative mens rea for a basic-intent offence capable of commission recklessly. Classification depends on the elements of the offence, not simply on whether intention appears in its definition.

The decision structures the modern law of intoxication and reflects a policy judgment that a person who voluntarily becomes dangerously intoxicated should not escape liability for basic-intent violence. Its specific-intent and basic-intent terminology must be used carefully: later cases examine the offence's actual mens rea rather than relying on labels alone. R v Heard applies the rule to sexual assault, while R v Kingston deals with involuntary intoxication and R v Hardie with an allegedly non-dangerous drug. Intoxication may still matter to a specific-intent charge and any available lesser basic-intent offence.