As St. Patrick’s Day approaches, festivities often bring increased attention to alcohol consumption, while the negative consequences of such drinking remain overlooked. Although various intoxication defences exist in the law of England and Wales, those who commit basic intent crimes while voluntarily intoxicated continue to be governed by the precedent set in DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443. This case, the focus of this week’s Decoding Judgements post, upholds public policy in cases of voluntary intoxication by prioritizing the protection of others.
Robert Majewski consumed a substantial quantity of drugs and alcohol during a multi-day binge leading up to the incident resulting in his charges. In this intoxicated state, he committed assault and battery against several individuals, including a police officer, pub patrons, and the landlord. Once detained, Majewski was charged with multiple offences, including causing grievous bodily harm.
Majewski’s defence rested on his intoxication, arguing that he could not remember the incident and was incapable of forming the necessary mens rea for the offences. Since the mens rea for these crimes was based on basic intent—requiring only intention or recklessness—the prosecution contended that voluntary intoxication should not serve as a defence. The rationale was twofold: to protect the public from offenders and to ensure that the law does not reward individuals who deliberately intoxicate themselves, thereby increasing the likelihood of criminal behaviour. How should the law balance public policy with an activity as socially accepted as intoxication?
The House of Lords ruled that voluntary intoxication could not be a defence for basic intent crimes, as seen in Majewski’s case. However, it clarified that voluntary intoxication could serve as a defence for specific intent crimes in certain situations. The reasoning was rooted in public policy, aiming to deter individuals from intentionally placing themselves in compromising situations—similar to how drinking for ‘Dutch courage’ is not a valid defence.
Lord Elwyn-Jones articulated this principle, stating of the defendant: “His course of conduct in reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition in my view supplies the evidence of mens rea, of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. It is a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases. … The drunkenness is itself an intrinsic, an integral part of the crime, the other part being the evidence of the unlawful use of force against the victim. Together they add up to criminal recklessness.”
DPP v Majewski remains a landmark case, reinforcing the principle that voluntary intoxication does not absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions in cases of basic intent crimes. Stay tuned for our next edition of Decoding Judgements, released every Friday!
Want to delve further into this area of criminal law? On CaseSnappy, you can summarize thousands of legal judgements. Today, we launch our all-new CaseSnappy Summarizer browser extension, allowing you to turn loooooong legal judgments into simple summaries directly within BAILII and The National Archives. Get started for free here.